Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cardiff

Kevin Brennan: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales Government on plans to mark the 50th anniversary of Cardiff being made capital city of Wales.

Peter Hain: First, I pay tribute to the people of Wales, who have responded with typical generosity to the tsunami appeal, in particular, Paul Sergeant at the millennium stadium in Cardiff and his team, who organised Saturday's fantastic concert, in record time, which has already raised more than £1.2 million.
	I discussed this unique anniversary on Monday. The year 2005 is a red-letter year for Cardiff—100 years of city status and 50 years since it became the capital of Wales. It is Europe's youngest capital and one of the most dynamic and attractive cities with a world-class stadium, millennium centre and business and leisure environment.

Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and join him in saying how proud I was of the organisers of the tsunami relief concert in Cardiff, which raised more than £1.2 million. Is that not testimony to the generosity and the tremendous organisational skills of the people of Cardiff and of Wales in general? What will my right hon. Friend do, as Secretary State for Wales, to help highlight Cardiff in its important double celebration this year, to make people even more aware that Cardiff has developed into a truly economic, cultural and political capital for Wales?

Peter Hain: For example, in my visits to China, Australia and New Zealand last year, I referred to Cardiff as a dynamic and expanding city. I know that there was a BBC website report of a European-wide survey in 2003, which identified Cardiff as the best city in which to live in Britain. As Neath is a town and not a city, I can agree with that.

Adam Price: I know that the Secretary of State is fond of marching. Will he join me, in this special year, at the annual parade on St. David's day? Will he bring pressure to bear on Cabinet colleagues to make St. David's day an annual public holiday so that everyone in Wales—not only those in the capital—can join in the celebrations?

Peter Hain: I think that I will be in the Chamber to speak in the St. David's day debate, so I am not sure that I will be able to join the hon. Gentleman at that event.
	As for St. David's day becoming a public holiday, it is a request that has been made over the past few years, and one that we will continue to consider. When there is a proper case for it rather than just a Welsh Assembly resolution passed to us, including consultation with the business community on its views and on the effect on the Welsh economy, we shall consider the matter further.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as part of Cardiff 2005, the Small World theatre is going to primary schools and secondary schools in Cardiff, particularly the Gabalfa primary school and Corpus Christi school in Cardiff, North, helping to promote understanding of what it feels like to be a refugee or an asylum seeker in Cardiff today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a positive thing to do in the year when Cardiff celebrates 50 years as a capital? What other things can he suggest to increase tolerance and understanding of the diverse communities that we have in Cardiff?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that Cardiff is a living symbol of a culture that is rich with diversity, different ethnic groups and different faiths. It is a city that is thriving and learning from the different communities that exist together in a dynamic way.

Lembit �pik: I add my praise to the organisers of the tsunami appeal event on Saturday night in Cardiff. When we consider that it took just three weeks to put that event together, it is testimony to what can be achieved with vision and focus.
	As for the 50th aniversary celebrations in Cardiff, is the Secretary of State aware that while the Millennium Commission has offered 1.3 million for those celebrations, to date the Welsh Assembly Government have offered no financial support? Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to have conversations with his opposite numbers and Rhodri Morgan to see that this omission, in my view, can be rectified?

Peter Hain: I will happily refer the hon. Gentleman's request to the First Minister when I next see him, which I think will be next week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that both football cup finals are held in the best stadium, I believe, in the world, which is in Cardiff. The Wales Rally GB has its headquarters in Cardiff and we now have in the millennium centre in Cardiff the best performing arts centre in Europe. Everybody should go there and enjoy it because it is absolutely marvellous.

Wrexham-Bidston Rail Line

Ian Lucas: If he will discuss the future of the Wrexham to Bidston railway line with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister for Economic Development and Transport of National Assembly for Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and Assembly Ministers on transport matters affecting Wales. I understand that the Wrexham to Bidston line is included in the Strategic Rail Authority's community rail development strategy, which is aimed at securing the longer-term viability of the line.

Ian Lucas: Merseyrail has put forward proposals to electrify the Wrexham-Bidston line, which would greatly improve links between Wrexham and Merseyside in the lead-up to Liverpool becoming the city of culture in a couple of years. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there are close discussions between the Assembly Transport Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, to ensure that that exciting proposal is taken forward so that the economy of north-east Wales can benefit?

Don Touhig: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The consortium of north Wales transport authorities, together with other parties, is asking for expressions of interest to undertake a study of the potential electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston line. It would be premature to speculate on any conclusions, but I understand that my hon. Friend has been having discussions with Merseytravel passenger transport executive on these matters. Should he care to come and brief me in the Wales Office, I shall be happy to arrange a meeting with him and make sure that his expressions of interest and concern are passed on to Assembly Ministers.

NHS Emergency Services

Julian Lewis: What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on proposals for changes to emergency services provision across Wales.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Assembly colleagues on matters affecting Wales.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for that rather uninformative reply. With the out-of-hours service described as a postcode lottery, and with the chief executive of the Cardiff and Vale Trust saying that the problem is a crippling lack of capacity, does the Minister feel even the slightest twinge of guilt about that claim made eight long years ago that the country had only 24 hours to save the NHS?

Don Touhig: I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that 35 billion-worth of cuts in public services will do little for the health service or the blue light services in Wales. As he makes a particular point about the health service and the trusts in Wales, we can get a clear indication of what his party would do if we look at the words of the co-chairman of the Conservative party, who told the Conservative Medical Society that the Conservatives had two objectives, first:
	to persuade the public that the NHS is not working . . . The second phase is to convince the public that it won't work and can't work.
	The clear message is that the election of a Tory Government would spell the end of the national health service.

Jon Owen Jones: When my hon. Friend next meets his ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, will he ask them to look at the provisions of the delayed discharges and transfer of care Bill and how it has worked in England to reduce bed blocking, and will he try and persuade them to learn from the experience of England and to adopt similar measures in Wales?

Don Touhig: As my hon. Friend is well aware, the new Health Minister in the Assembly has said that it is important that all of us in the United Kingdomthe devolved Administrations and the Governmentlearn from each other. As my hon. Friend knows, the new Health Minister in the Assembly will be addressing Parliament in the next week or so. I am sure he will put that point to him and receive an appropriate response.

Bill Wiggin: One of the hardest-hit emergency services is the accident and emergency department at University Hospital of Wales Cardiff, where patients were described as being treated worse than animals. Dave Galligan of Unison said in The Western Mail that he was horrified at the conditions and that, over the past 25 years he had heard it all, and this was not the NHS of the 21st century. Is this just a January thing, or what will the Minister do?

Don Touhig: It is important that all of us who are concerned, interested and supportive of the national health service take those comments very seriously. I have no doubt that my colleague the Assembly Minister for Health and other Assembly Ministers in Cardiff will take them seriously. I am sure an appropriate response will follow. It is important to recognise that we are making good 18 years of under-investment in the health service in Wales as a result of the cuts that the hon. Gentleman's party imposed when they were in power. He will have to answer to the people of Wales how 35 billion-worth of cuts will benefit them. They will destroy the health service and other public services in Wales. Those are the issues that he will face, should there be a general election this year.

Regimental Names

Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he has made to Cabinet colleagues regarding safeguarding the names of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales.

Peter Hain: The executive committee of the Army Board took the decision to rename a large number of regiments. I am sympathetic to the questions that have been raised in many quarters and suggest that hon. Members write to the executive committee with their concerns.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to early-day motion 566, which is supported by every political party in Wales and others? The issue is, of course, whether the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales and the Royal Welsh Regiment can maintain their identities by keeping their cap badges and so on. Will the Secretary of State have a word with his Cabinet colleagues between now and the end of the month, because an all-party group is going to see the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 February? Those honourable regiments have many decades of history, and we need to keep them. The decision will adversely affect recruitment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.

Peter Hain: Apart from his point about recruitment, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and understand the points that he is making. It is important not to forget that, on the whole, the restructuring has been quite positive for Walesfor example, the number of Welsh battalions has not been reduced, the number of Welsh soldiers has not been cut and the role of Wales's two famous regiments has not been diminished. The hon. Gentleman knows that those regiments retain their unique identities within the new, larger Welsh regiments, and regimental traditions, cultures, local connections and so on will be maintained within the new arrangements. I have discussed the matter in detail with the Secretary of State for Defence and urge the hon. Gentleman to take my earlier advice and make representations to the executive committee of the Army Board, which was responsible for the decision.

Albert Owen: My right hon. Friend knows that my constituents have strong feelings about the proposed name changes. Last Friday, I met ex-service personnel, including members of the Royal Welch Fusiliers Comrades Association. Does my right hon. Friend agree that ex-service personnel should be consulted directly on any future name changes, because they are best placed to preserve the strong traditions and hiraeth of Welsh regiments?

Peter Hain: I agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend and am aware of the important history and current role of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. His constituents in Anglesey have made a big contribution to the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and I urge him to make representations to the executive committee of the Army Board, which was responsible for the original recommendation.

Roger Williams: Before the all-party group meets the Secretary of State for Defence, will the Secretary of State for Wales sort out the misinformation that the Welsh regiments did not ask to be treated on a similar basis to the Scottish regiments, because we know that the colonel of the Royal Welch Fusiliers wrote to General Sir Michael Jackson about that very issue?

Peter Hain: I have been advised that the Army Board took advice from senior military leaders in Wales, but, given the reaction, the hon. Gentleman's point should be heard.

Gareth Thomas: The Secretary of State is a man of influence and some charm. Surely he can prevail upon the top brass to do something as simple as removing a few sets of brackets, because for some of us that is all the issue boils down to.

Peter Hain: Apart from his point about influence and charm, my hon. Friend has made his case eloquently. The Secretary of State for Defence is aware of the feelings of Welsh Members of Parliament, and he has listened. The executive committee of the Army Board is the appropriate place to make any representations.

Bill Wiggin: The Army Board clearly took the advice of the colonel commandant of the Prince of Wales Division, who may well have made a mistake. Will the Secretary of State persuade the Secretary of State for Defence to listen to Major-General Brian Plummer, who is colonel of the regiment, so that Wales is treated equally to Scotland?

Peter Hain: Given the feeling in Wales, the executive committee of the Army Board should listen to such figures and others, and I am sure that that is what will happen.

Betty Williams: I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the executive committee, but can he explain a little further what representations have been made and what discussions have taken place between the generals on the board and various organisations in Wales? I am sure that he is aware of the great disquiet among the Welsh public about what we term a mistake.

Peter Hain: I understand the strong feelings that my hon. Friend expresses. As I said, I have discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Defence, who is well aware of those considerations. I am sure that the executive committee of the Army Board will want to look closely at any representations that are made.

Allergy Sufferers

Andrew Selous: What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales' Minister for Health and Social Services on the treatment of allergy sufferers in Wales.

Peter Hain: I met the new Health Minister last week.

Andrew Selous: Given that three out of 10 adults and four out of 10 children suffer from allergies, why do patients from north Wales have to travel to Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham to see an immunologist, and why is the nearest full-time allergy clinic to Wales in Leicester?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He will be pleased to know that notwithstanding the situation regarding north Wales, an extra consultant is being recruited at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. However, that does not negate his point, which has already been made by the Select Committee on Health.

Welsh Economy

Alan Howarth: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effects of the Chancellor's proposals in the pre-Budget report on the economy in Wales.

Peter Hain: Regular ones. As a result of the pre-Budget report, an additional 38.5 million will be invested in Wales, including measures to improve skills, productivity and entrepreneurship and council tax support.

Alan Howarth: Are not increases in skills and knowledge key to the continuing progress of the Welsh economy? Has my right hon. Friend discussed with Cabinet colleagues how we will carry forward in Wales the implications of the Chancellor's announcements that there will be, at one end of the spectrum, an additional 11.6 million to improve basic skills and, at the other end, tax reforms to assist 13 universities and research institutes in Wales to launch spin-off companies? Has he also discussed with ministerial colleagues what would be the implications for business confidence of the abolition of the National Assembly for Wales?

Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, the investment in skills, the support for the council tax and support for business that will flow through in the coming months under this Government could all be jeopardised by 35 billion of Conservative cuts.
	On instability resulting from the abolition of the Assembly, I note that the shadow spokesman on Wales has said:
	I think people in Wales would do better without an Assembly.
	The Tory leader in the Assembly has said:
	I think it would be disastrous to abolish the Assembly,
	while the Leader of the Opposition has said:
	I have not yet made up my mind.

Nigel Evans: What we do know is that Wales would do better without a Labour Government. Why have they turned their backs on manufacturing in Wales? There was a time when Wales was proud to be a world exporter of manufacturing goods; now we are an exporter of manufacturing jobs. Is it not a fact that as a result of the climate change levy and the sea of red tape introduced by this Government, Wales has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs over the past seven years?

Peter Hain: That from the former spokesman for a Conservative Government who massacred 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Wales and plunged Wales into economic instability with high inflation, mortgages doubling, interest rates rising, and unemployment at historically high levels. The most recent figures show that the manufacturing sector in Wales expanded at a faster rate than the service sector. According to the Royal Bank of Scotland, manufacturers reported strong sales and investment in new products. Wales is succeeding and our economy is getting stronger under a Labour Government. All that would be put at risk if the Tories were re-elected. Wales is workingdo not let the Tories wreck it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The manufacturing sector in my area has been doing very well under this Government. However, the Secretary of State will be aware of last week's announcement of 300 job losses at Sony in Bridgend and Pencoed. In his discussions with Cabinet colleagues and counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales, will he do all that he can to ensure that the 1,200 existing jobs are retained and that additional production lines are brought to Bridgend, which will ensure not only that 30 years of production continue but that we give another 30 years to the loyal work force at Sony in Bridgend and Pencoed?

Peter Hain: I am sure that Sony Bridgend and Pencoed will continue to play a vital role in the south Wales economy, as it has done for many decades. We are proud to have it there. My hon. Friend will understand that the specific television sets that it used to build are going out of fashion because flat screens are becoming more popular, and that change is responsible for the job cuts. However, it is an example of the success of the Welsh economy under the Government that even such job losses do not disturb the overall employment growth and success of the Welsh economy, where business confidence is higher than for many a long year.

Dental Services

Ann Winterton: What discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the provision of NHS dentistry on the Welsh borders.

Don Touhig: I met the Assembly's new Health Minister last week and we discussed a range of matters about health in Wales.

Ann Winterton: Will the Under-Secretary prompt the Assembly's new Health Minister to allow Welsh patients to receive badly needed treatment by registering across the border, for example, at the brand new 10,000 patient practice at Oswestry, where they are currently banned from registering? Does he know that the British Dental Association estimates that Wales is short of 50 NHS dentists and that half the present practitioners will retire in 10 years? Is not the state of NHS dentistry in Wales dire?

Don Touhig: The Welsh dental initiative provides grants of up to 50,000 to practices to increase NHS dentistry provision. I am aware of the issue about mid-Wales and Oswestry and I have no doubt that my ministerial colleagues in Cardiff will take those matters on board. However, given the Conservative party's record when it was in government: the lack of investment in the health service; the closure of 70 hospitals, and the reduction in nurse and midwifery training, a Conservative criticising the health service in Wales has as much moral authority as the highwayman Dick Turpin complaining about the state of the roads.

Bill Wiggin: The Under-Secretary is living in cloud cuckoo land because the British Dental Association says that the number of NHS dentists in Wales is
	at an all-time low.
	Is he convinced that Rhodri Morgan's third choice as Assembly Health Minister, who has already admitted that he has no policy ideas, can improve matters in any way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.

Don Touhig: I have no doubt that my new colleague, the Assembly's Health Minister, will do a great deal to improve the quality of the health service in Wales, just as the Labour Administration have done since the Assembly's creation. As the hon. Gentleman well knows from living close to the border, we have been putting right 18 years of under-investment and reversing the run down of our health service that occurred when the Conservatives, who had the ability to do something, did nothing. We are making considerable strides and improvements. When it comes to an election, the people of Wales will know who stands up for the health servicethe Labour party.

Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend knows that the problem of NHS dentistry in Wales is not confined to the border area. For example, this month, in common with many people in Swansea, I learned that my dentist is going over to Denplan. That is all right for me but there is no assurance in Swansea that provision for those on low income or benefit will continue. That is a genuine problem. How does my hon. Friend, with the National Assembly, propose to tackle it?

Don Touhig: I have already referred to the Welsh dental initiative. In the past two years, 10 new dental practices that offer NHS dentistry have opened and 26 have expanded their NHS dental provision. Grants of up to 20,000 are available to establish new vocational training places for dentistry in Wales. My right hon. Friend will recognise that, although there is a long way to go to improve the quality and spread of NHS dentistry provision in Wales, it will be helped by the continued investment and reform to which the Government and our colleagues in the Assembly are committed.

Ministerial Meetings

Simon Thomas: When he last met the Minister for Health and Social Services of the National Assembly for Wales Government; and what matters were discussed.

Peter Hain: I met the Health Minister on 21 January when we discussed various matters.

Simon Thomas: I am glad to know that the Secretary of State is discussing various matters. Perhaps he has discussed with the new Health Minister the fact that patients in Wales are being treated like animals according to one hospital nurse, who has been supported by her managers. Will he look at the case of my constituent, Susan Papworth, who has been told that she will have to wait six years for treatment for a growth on her thumb? Is not that symptomatic of the problems that the NHS in Wales is experiencing? A six-year wait for surgery is not acceptable and shows that the Labour Government in Wales have not yet got a grip on the NHS and the need to improve it in Wales.

Peter Hain: I agree that a six-year wait is unacceptable. That is why the Assembly Government under Labour are continuing to invest, to recruit more consultants, nurses and doctors, and to open more hospitals, compared with the massacre in services that took place under the last Tory Government. Just as England has learned from best practice in Wales, so Wales must learn from best practice in England in relation to waiting lists. I am therefore encouraged that the new Health Minister in the Assembly Government has said that he intends to look at the reasons why England has been so successful in tackling waiting lists through the introduction of new treatment centres.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Chris Ruane: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 January.

Tony Blair: Perhaps I could start by updating the House yet again on the likely death figures for British people in the tsunami. I shall do this perhaps for the last time, but I thought that it might be helpful to give the House an update. The figure for category 1that is, those who are highly likely to be lostnow stands at 249, which includes 53 confirmed dead. Thankfully, therefore, that figure continues to fall. The figure for category 2that is, those unaccounted for in the regionis now 260, which is also substantially lower than previous estimates.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Chris Ruane: As the son of an Irish immigrant, may I point out to the Prime Minister that my first born was delivered by an Egyptian immigrant, and that my GP for 25 years was a Sri Lankan immigrant? Does he agree that we should celebrate the contributions made by immigrants to British society? [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Does he further agree that we should create a safe haven for refugees while combating abuses in the system?

Tony Blair: First, it is of course extremely important to tackle the abuses in the asylum and immigration system, and that is what the Government are doing. We will publish further proposals on that over the next few weeks. But I can tell my hon. Friend what we will not do. We will not keep out those people who have a genuine contribution to make to our economy and who are making such a contribution, and we will not shut our door to genuine refugees. In particular, we will not put forward unworkable, impractical, uncosted proposals such as those of the Conservative party.

Michael Howard: We all celebrate the contribution made by immigrants to our country. The question is: does the Prime Minister think that the overall level of immigration into this country is too high?

Tony Blair: I think it is important[Hon. Members: Answer!] I will answer in this way: I think it is important to make sure that those who come into our country through the immigration route are people who can make a genuine contribution to this country. It is important that we tackle abuses, but I do not think that we should go down the road that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has proposed. He says that we should try to process asylum claims in some far-off place, but he has still not told us where it actually is. As we are having this debate, perhaps he will tell us where this offshore place is in which he wants the claims to be processed.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister talked about an unworkable immigration policy. I will tell him about an unworkable immigration policy. It is one that introduces dispersal, then scraps it. It is one that brings in vouchers, then tears them up. It is one that describes a designated list as racist, then reintroduces it six years later. It is one that connives in false applications for work permits, sacks officials for telling the truth and clings to Ministers who do not. That is an unworkable immigration policy, and it is not mine, it is the Prime Minister's.
	The Prime Minister completely failed to answer my first question. Let me ask him another. A year ago, he said,
	we are not giving up the power to set our asylum laws.[Official Report, 15 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1334.]
	This week, the European Commission flatly contradicted him. Who is right?

Tony Blair: We have not given up our right to set our own laws and to control our own borders. What we have done is say that we should be part of the European system to stop asylum shopping. That allows us, incidentally, to return some 2,500 failed asylum seekers to Europe each year. It is correct that it also means that we cannot withdraw from the United Nations convention. I do not wish to, and let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why.
	The problem with asylum, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, is not the number of genuine refugees; it is people coming into this country claiming to be genuine refugees who are in fact economic migrants. Now, every single point he raised about our system is wrong, but let me ask him yet again, as we are having a debate about policy [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is in order. I will let him know when he is out of order.

Tony Blair: The reason I am not in favour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is that he is unable to tell us where he would process these claims. We have had four answers. In answer to the question:
	Where will the centres be?
	he answered:
	Well, we don't know yet.
	When his shadow Attorney-General was asked whether he has had any preliminary indication from any country that it will handle them, the answer was: No, of course not. The shadow Chancellor, when asked, Where is it? answered, I have no idea. The shadow Home Secretary said that
	it was an island or a peninsula or . . . somewhere.
	I say that we deal with the abuses but let genuine refugees in. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we should process them all abroad, where?

Hon. Members: Answer!

Michael Howard: If the Prime Minister wants to ask

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition does not have to answer. He asks the questions.

Michael Howard: If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, we can change places now. We do not need to wait until May.
	Let us get back to the question I asked the Prime Minister and let me tell him exactly what the European Commission said yesterday: there is nothing in these protocols that his Government signed
	that allows a British Government to opt out again. So Britain is bound by them,
	contrary to the assurances he gave the House.
	Is not the real difference between us this: under the Prime Minister's Government, there is no limit on immigration, no proper control of asylum and control of our borders has been given away to Brussels? We will introduce a limit on immigration, a quota on asylum, 24-hour security at our ports and a points system for work permits. I think decisions on immigration should be made here in Britain. He thinks they should be made in Brussels. Is not that the real choice facing the country?

Tony Blair: No, it is not. Let me make this clear straight away: I do not favour withdrawing from the 1951 UN convention. It is not the problem. The problem is how we stop people coming into this country and claiming asylum when they should not and how we remove them again, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced recently that he would cut 900 million from the asylum and immigration budget through establishing what he calls the Australian-style agency. Well, I have been doing a bit of research on Australia and its agency and I can tell the House that, first, Australia's arrangements for processing offshore do not relate to in-country asylum seekers, yet the majority of British asylum seekers seek asylum in-country. Secondly, it costs even more to process them than it does in this country. So, if we were to find such a country to process offshore the claimsthe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told us where it isthat would double our immigration costs, not halve them. That is why his proposals are completely unworkable.
	Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I believe we should do: we should let people into this country who can work and contribute to this economy and we should deal with the abuses of the asylum system, but we should not end up putting forward unworkable, impractical solutions that would make the problem worse. Just for the record, no, I am not accusing him of being a racist. He is not a racist; he is just a shameless opportunist.

Kali Mountford: Out of 300 deaths a year by drowning, seven take place in swimming pools, and the rest in reservoirs, rivers and canals, such as those in Colne Valley. Given the obvious health benefits of learning to swim, will my right hon. Friend intervene with the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management and the Health and Safety Executive, which are restricting the ability of parents, especially single parents, to teach their children to swim? Will he make sure that all our children get a chance to swim?

Tony Blair: Coincidentally, I raised this issue when I was in Kent last week. The current situation arising from the new guidelines is a complete nonsense parents are perfectly well able to judge how best to look after their children. I have therefore asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call in representatives of the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management and the Health and Safety Executive to see whether we can get this situation sorted out, as it is causing unnecessary distress and concern to many parents.

Charles Kennedy: This week, 25 per cent of teenage boys who have grown up under this Government were classed by the Home Office as serious or prolific offenders. The Prime Minister promised to be
	tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.
	Twenty-six Home Office Bills, hundreds of initiatives and thousands of targets later into his Government, must not he concede that for that generation, it was all just another empty promise?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that, for two reasons. First, crime overall, both recorded and according to the British crime survey, is down under this Government, not up. Secondly, in 1996, the Audit Commission, which produces regular reports on youth offending, said that
	the current system for dealing with youth crime is inefficient and expensive, while little is done to deal effectively with juvenile nuisance.
	By contrast, in 2004, it said that
	the new arrangements are a significant improvement and a good model for delivering public services.
	We are putting a lot of money not just into making sure that we halve the time that it takes to bring prolific youth offenders to court, which we have done, but into youth intervention services, too. I do not dispute in any shape or form that it is a problem, but we are tackling it. Surely it is extraordinary for the Liberal Democrats to refer to it when they have opposed every measure that we have introduced to tackle crime, including the antisocial behaviour legislation that is so popular.

Charles Kennedy: Indeed, we have disagreed with many of the Government's proposals, and given the conclusions published by the Home Office this week, clearly, those proposals have not worked in many respects. In that same tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime speech, the Prime Minister went on to say something that we thoroughly endorse:
	Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let the money provide thousands of extra police officers on the beat in local communities.
	Now, whatever happened to that promise?

Tony Blair: The whole issue of identity cards has changed completely, because of the nature of international terrorism and the threat that we face, and, as I have always explained, because of new biometric technology. Given that we will move to biometric passports in any event, it makes sense at the same time to move to identity cards. I acknowledge that we also said that the fight against crime would be helped by increasing the number of police officers, and we have done just that. We have record numbers, with 12,500 extra. We also said that we would invest in young people by offering them a way out of benefit and into work. The new deal has been of central importance in achieving that, but the Lib Dems opposed it.

Andrew Miller: This week, the Government published an important document setting out a strategic vision for housing, especially affordable housing, taking us forward a number of years. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that not only do needs vary between different parts of the country but that, for example, in my community, the needs of Ellesmere Port and Neston are different from those of Chester. Will he ensure that as this important document is worked through into delivery, there is a flexible system that enables different communities' needs to be met?

Tony Blair: It is important for us to deal with the different housing problems in different parts of the country. That is precisely why the plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would increase access to home ownership for first-time buyers and key workers, and also expandin specific areas of the south and south-eastthe housing supply, which is necessary for the overall housing market.
	My hon. Friend is right: obviously there are different problems in areas like the north-west. That is why the sustainable communities plan is so important. It will allow us to invest in housinggood housing for home ownership, but also social housing. And that is why it is so wrong of the Conservative party to pledge 1 billion of cuts in the sustainable communities plan.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has just bought a new house. The Chancellor and I are both looking forward to the house-warming party. Does the Prime Minister not agree that housing association tenants should have the right to buy their homes as well?

Tony Blair: Of course, many housing association tenants do. What I do not agree with, however, are the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals, because they would extend the entitlement in such a way that housing associations would be unable to replenish their social housing stock. That would do great damage to our ability to give people affordable housing. Far better are my right hon. Friend's proposals, which will allow people to build up an equity stake over time while allowing the housing associations, as that happens, to replenish the housing stock. That is a far better and more affordable proposal.

Michael Howard: What many housing association tenants want is the ability to turn their dream of owning their homes into a reality. They want a right to buy their homes. The Prime Minister's policy gives the final say to the housing associations, not their tenants, and that is not a right.
	Despite all the hyperbole that we heard earlier in the week, does that not mean that the Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he told the Labour party conference
	Those homes are not for sale?

Tony Blair: Let me say first that we have some 1.5 million more home owners under this Government than we had in 1997. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. We are not saying that there should be an absolute entitlement, because if we allow that to happen to housing association homes built for social housing, the stock will fall and we will not have the housing to give people who cannot afford to buy their own homes. What we have said is that people will be able to build up an equity stake in their homes over a period. The other day I met people who were doing just that. In the end it will be far better for them, and it allows them to acquire a stake in their own homes while allowing the housing associations to replenish the housing stock.
	In addition, incidentally, we are putting aside money that will be used for first-time buyers and key workers. Let me say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: that 1 billion cut in the sustainable communities plan would cut directly the help being given to key workers, first-time buyers and social tenants.

Michael Howard: We have explained how the money that we make available will lead to more social housing, not less.
	Let us look at the Government's record on social housing, because social housing is important. Labour Members ought to listen to this, because I suspect that not all of them know about it. Under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, the number of homes built as social housing for rent has fallen by more than 40 per cent., from 32,500 a year in 1997 to about 19,000 today. Is this not the choice faced by the country: the right to buy your own home and the extension of home ownership under the Conservatives, or get back to the end of the queue and take what you are given under Labour?

Tony Blair: Actually, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that the amount of social housing has fallen. That is precisely why it is foolish to deplete the stock that we have now. Instead we must build the stock back up, and allowing housing associations to do so is one very important aspect of that.
	Let me say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however. That is not the only thing that we have to do. We must also allow for more homes to be built in specific designated areas like the Thames gateway, where we have derelict land and buildings where we could build homes. Earlier today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's shadow spokesman on housing, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), said that there was no question of the Thames gateway project going ahead under the Conservatives and that they would cancel it. Perhaps he will now confirm that that is right.

Michael Meacher: In view of reports circulating around President Bush's second inauguration that the Bush Administration are now contemplating an attack on Iranallegedly, US special forces are already in place in that countrywill my right hon. Friend give an unequivocal and categoric assurance to the House that he will in no way involve British forces in any such attack if it were to take place? Will he also give an assurance that he will seek publicly as well as privately strongly to dissuade the Americans from undertaking any such attack, including the use of Israeli planes to bomb Iranian nuclear installations?

Tony Blair: I know of no such contemplation by the United States of America. I refer my right hon. Friend to what the Vice-President of America said the other day, when he made it quite clear there was no such contemplation by America. What he went on to say, however, and I fully agree with this, is that there is indeed a serious issue as to Iran, nuclear weapons and its obedience to the International Atomic Energy Authority. What we are doing in Europe, in concert with America and others, is trying to ensure that Iran complies with its international obligations. I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts, as I do, that we must do everything we possibly can to send the right signal to Iran that it does indeed have to comply with those obligations.

Paul Tyler: Will the Prime Minister reiterate his manifesto commitment to make the composition of the House of Lords more democratic and representative, and will he endorse the welcome given by the Leader of the House on Thursday to the all-party initiative that we have put forward to achieve that? A simple yes will suffice.

Tony Blair: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not quite get that. It is important that we have the debate about the future composition of the House of Lords. My own position is that I think it is very difficult to have a hybrid part-elected, part-appointed House of Lords. That is why I do not favour it, but the debate will continue and I have made it clear that it should be a free-vote issue.

Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister will be aware of the efforts that have been made in the past seven years to buy the IRA into peace and the political process. He now knows that the Ulster Defence Association, a loyalist paramilitary group, is demanding 78 million as its price for ending its violence and criminality. Will the two Governments finally realise that they cannot buy peace, they cannot buy a political process and they cannot buy political stability?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: we cannot do that. However, if people are unwilling to give up paramilitary activity, we must be able to find a way to move forward across the communities in Northern Ireland. That means that there are things for everyone, including his own party, to consider. I believe that it is important that we continue to strive to take this process forward on an inclusive basis, but, as I indicated last week, it cannot be the case that there is a process of transition. Frankly, time is running out for this decision to be made by those who are connected with paramilitary groups. People have to decidethey are either part of the democratic process or they are not. That moment of decision has long since passed and it has simply got to be clear whether people have made their decision or not.

David Burnside: When the Prime Minister meets the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA, Gerry Adams, at Chequers early next week, will he outline the sanctions to be used against Sinn Fein-IRA for carrying out the biggest bank robbery in British history? Since his chief of staff is negotiating a financial package for the UDA to stop its criminality, would the Prime Minister be prepared to set up a British taxpayers' fund for the widows and orphans of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Regular Army and the families of those officers in the Prison Service who fought against the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups over the past 30 years? Will there be any taxpayers' money for them?

Tony Blair: First, there is not such a negotiation. Secondly, let me take the opportunity yet again to pay our respects and sympathy to the bereaved of all the people who died, whether in the service of the RUC or any other form of service in Northern Ireland, as a result of acts of terrorism. I cannot add to what I said a moment ago, but if we are to take this process forward now, it can be on one basis only. That has been made clear and I will take the opportunity to make it clear yet again. If it proves impossible to go forward on that inclusive basis, we will have to look for another way forward. It is as simple as that. I know people criticise the fact that I am meeting the leader of Sinn Fein, but I think it important that that message is delivered, and delivered in a straightforward way.

Kelvin Hopkins: Unison members at Luton and Dunstable hospital in my constituency are seriously concerned that a new scanner at the hospital cannot be fully utilised because primary care trust funds have been channelled to private scanner services at Stevenage and Bedford, meaning that my constituents must travel unnecessarily to be scanned. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is privatising nonsense, and will he use his good offices to get the policy changed so that my constituents can take advantage of the scanner at the Luton and Dunstable hospital and save public money in the process?

Tony Blair: Obviously, I do not know the precise circumstances of my hon. Friend's hospital, and it would be worth looking into that. If a PCT needs to commission care from elsewhere for NHS patients, free at the point of use, it should be able to do so. Overall, a large additional sum of money is going to my hon. Friend's constituency and to every constituency in the country. I am surprised by what he tells me and I will certainly look into it, but the most important thing is that we make sure that NHS patients get the quickest and best possible care, which is the purpose of the Government's reforms.

Michael Spicer: What are the characteristics of old Labour that he dislikes so much? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to repeat that.

Michael Spicer: What are the characteristics of old Labour that he dislikes so much?

Tony Blair: Basically, that it never won two successive terms of Government and, perhaps, that it never put the Conservative party flat on its back, which is where it is now. Thankfully, we are running an economy with low inflation, low mortgage rates and low unemployment; fortunately, we are doing a darn sight better than the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a Member, who hadI thank him for allowing me to mention thisinterest rates at 10 per cent. for four years, 3 million unemployed and two recessions. Whether it is old Labour or new Labour, it is a darn sight better than the Tories.

Iain Wright: Police community support officers are a huge success in Hartlepool, providing assistance to the police in their fight against crime and reassurance to residents. Yet their shifts end at 9 o'clock at night, precisely the time when antisocial behaviour starts to increase on our estates. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that CSOs have the power and money available to them to ensure that they work later into the evenings?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Although CSOs were opposed by the Opposition, most people now accept that they are a very good support for the police in patrolling our communities. He is right to say that people would like to see CSOs on duty even later at night. The exact hours they work has to be a matter for the chief constable, but I assure him that we will continue to invest in local communities and CSOs. We will not follow the proposals to cut the Home Office budget, which would be absolutely disastrous. We will continue with the antisocial behaviour legislation that has resulted in more than 40,000 fixed penalty notices and more than 3,000 antisocial behaviour orders. There is still a great deal to do, but the legislation is making a difference in many constituencies.

Martin Smyth: I was interested in the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside). Is he unaware that his officials are negotiating? What message are the Government giving to international terrorists by continuing to pamper Sinn Fein-IRA and loyalist paramilitaries groups?

Tony Blair: It is not our intention to pamper them at all. On the contrary, the intention is to get them to give up violence and join the political process. That is what we are trying to do. For all the real difficulties in the peace process, we should not ignore the tremendous progress that has been made in the past seven or eight years. We are at a point today where everybody, not only in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland, is making it clear that they have had enough of political parties being allied to paramilitary activity and that that has to stop. The fact that that message is being given not only by the British Government but by the Irish Government is a significant advance.

Tony Cunningham: There is no doubt that huge investment has come into west Cumbria in recent years, with unemployment now the lowest it has been for a generation. However, real challenges still exist, with threats to jobs in the local steelworks, to civil service jobs and to jobs in the nuclear industry. It is worth reminding people that the nuclear industry provides 13,000 jobs in west Cumbria. Will my right hon. Friend continue to take a personal interest in west Cumbria, so that all the tremendous work that has been done is not undone?

Tony Blair: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the work that they do in the nuclear industry. He is right to say that unemployment has fallen substantially. That is in part because of the strength of the economy and in part because of the new deal. It is also in part because much support has been provided by the Department of Trade and Industry. Those programmes helped some 7,500 businesses in Cumbria last year. It would therefore be very unfortunate if we were to cut that DTI support and the new deal and put at risk our economic stability. Fortunately those are not our policies, but the policies of the Opposition.

Measures to Combat Terrorism

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the powers in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. These matters have of course received the closest attention in this House and in the other place, through the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, and the Joint Committee on Human Rightsto all of which I pay respect. I appreciate, too, the valuable work carried out by a Committee of Privy Councillors under the chairmanship of Lord Newton of Braintree, and of course we have had the regular advice of Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of both the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act and the Terrorism Act 2000. This work shows the comprehensive scrutiny that both Houses give to these difficult issues. And of course, what I am saying today follows on from the consultation paper that my predecessor published in February last year, which has informed the conclusions that I am presenting today.
	As the House well knows, the part 4 powers are immigration powers. They enable me to certify and detain pending deportation suspected international terrorists whom, because of our international commitments, we cannot remove. Despite concerns when we legislated for part 4, the powers have been used very sparingly, with only 17 people certified since the powers were introduced. Those currently certified and detained were certified as being suspected international terrorists on the basis of a careful Security Service assessment of the significant threat that they poseand that judgment has been upheld regularly by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
	On 16 December last year the House of Lords Judicial Committee handed down its judgment on the compatibility of the part 4 powers with the European convention on human rights. The members of the Committee quashed the Human Rights 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001 and declared section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act incompatible with articles 5, on the right to liberty, and 14, on freedom from discrimination, of the ECHR. They did so for two main reasonsfirst, because they considered that the part 4 powers were discriminatory in that they only applied to foreign nationals, and secondly, because they were not proportionate as a response to the threat that we faced from terrorism.
	It is true that the part 4 powers apply only to foreign nationals. The reason for that is that when we looked at the very real threat that we faced from international terrorism in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events of 9/11, we were able to identify a small number of foreign nationals resident here who posed a particular danger to us. Prosecution for their activities was not possible for evidential reasonsalthough two of those certified and detained under the part 4 powers have since been convicted of criminal offencesand there was no realistic prospect of deporting them.
	The part 4 powers were the means of containing those foreign nationals' activities where prosecution was not possible. I can tell the House that the Government believe that the powers have played an essential part in addressing the current public emergency, because they have been successful in containing the threat posed by those certified and detained under them.
	Moreover, the powers have had another effect. It is clear from the intelligence reports that I have seen that the existence and use of the powers have helped to make the UK a far more hostile environment for international terrorists to operate in, with the result that some have been deterred from coming here, and others have left entirely, to avoid being certified and detained. I am, of course, pleased about that, and reaffirm that the UK must never be regarded as a soft touch or a safe haven for terrorists.
	The Government believed that the part 4 powers were justified, because the threat appeared to come predominantly, albeit not exclusively, from foreign nationals, because foreign nationals do not have the same right to be here as British nationals, and because against the background of UN Security Council resolution 1373's strong condemnation of terrorism, it was necessary to take positive action against peripatetic terrorists who happened to be living here.
	That said, however, I accept the Law Lords' declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR of section 23 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act. I accept, too, the Lords' judgment that new legislative measures must apply equally to nationals as well as to non-nationals. But we still need to decide how to deal with the threat presented by terrorists without the assistance of the part 4 powers.
	My starting point is the threat that we face. That is, of course, a heavy responsibility for all concerned, and one that has the highest priority of all. That is why I have to take account of events happening around the world, and in particular here at home. I have had frequent discussions with the director general of the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner since my appointment. I am left in absolutely no doubt that nothing has happened recently that diminishes the threat, or calls into question the state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
	The 2001 Act was enacted because there was an unprecedented terrorist threat to the UK, which was assessed to emanate from al-Qaeda and those individuals and groups within the loosely co-ordinated series of overlapping terrorist networks linked to it. Our understanding of the threat has advanced since then, both from an increasing intelligence base and through the investigation of both successful and thwarted attacks. It is clear that some British nationals are now playing a more significant role in these threats. At the same time, networks consisting of foreign nationals with international links remain.
	In the past year, we have seen the multiple attacks in Spain in March 2004, attacks at al-Khobar in Saudi Arabia in May, the attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in September, an attack on an Israeli-owned hotel in Egypt in October, and the attack on the US consulate in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia in December 2004.
	In these circumstances, I repeat that my judgment is that there remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. The absence of the part 4 powers would present us with real difficulties, so I now set out the ways in which we can meet this threat.
	The Government believe that the answer lies in a twin-track approach: specifically, deportation with assurances for foreign nationals whom we can and should deport, and a new mechanismcontrol ordersfor containing and disrupting those whom we cannot prosecute or deport.
	I shall deal first with deportation with assurances. As the House knows, we have been trying for some time to address the problems posed by individuals whose deportation could fall foul of our international obligations by seeking memorandums of understanding with their countries of origin. We are currently focusing our attention on certain key middle-eastern and north African countries. I am determined to progress this with energy. My noble Friend Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean visited the region last week. She had positive discussions with a number of countries, on which we are now seeking to build.
	I want to make it clear that prosecution is, and will remain, our preferred way forward when dealing with all terrorists. All agencies operate on that basis, and will continue to do so, but all of us need to recognise that it is not always possible to bring charges, given the need to protect highly sensitive sources and techniques.
	There is a widespread misconception that if we could only adduce intercept as evidence, we would be able to prosecute those detained. However, the review of intercept as evidence found no evidence to support this, and I have consequently made a written statement today, explaining that the Government do not intend to change the existing arrangements. Intercept provides only part of the intelligence against individuals, and sometimes a small part; it does not stand alone. Some of the material that we have in these cases is inadmissible, and other material, while technically admissible, could not be adduced without compromising national security, damaging relationships with foreign powers or intelligence agencies, or putting the lives of sources at risk. So there are cases in which we remain unable to prosecute. However, that does not mean that we should do nothing to forestall suspected terrorists or to prevent them from planning, assisting or otherwise supporting those willing to carry out attacks.
	The Government have therefore decided to replace the part 4 powers with a new system of control orders. We intend that such orders be capable of general application to any suspected terrorist irrespective of nationality or, for most controls, of the nature of the terrorist activitywhether international or domesticand that they should enable us to impose conditions constraining the ability of those subject to the orders to engage in terrorist-related activities. Control orders would be used only in serious cases. The controls imposed would be proportionate to the threat that each individual posed. Such orders would be preventive and designed to disrupt those seeking to carry out attackswhether here or elsewhereor who are planning or otherwise supporting such activities. They would be designed to address directly two of the Law Lords' concerns: discrimination and proportionality.
	I turn to the key features of the scheme. The Secretary of State would consider whether, on the basis of an intelligence assessment provided by the Security Service, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual is, or has been, concerned with terrorism. If the answer to that question is yes, and if the Secretary of State considers such action necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorist-related activities, he or she would impose controls on that individual. There would be a range of controls restricting movement and association or other communication with named individuals; the imposition of curfews and/or tagging; and restrictions on access to telecommunications, the internet and other technology. At the top end, control orders would include a requirement to remain at their premises. The controls to be imposed under the new scheme will not include detention in prison, although I intend that breach of a control order should be a criminal offence, triable in the usual way through the criminal courts and punishable by imprisonment.
	There will be independent judicial scrutiny involving the hearing of evidence, in open and closed session, against the imposition of the order or any subsequent variation of its provisions. There will be a mechanism for reviewing and modifying conditions as circumstances warrant, subject again to independent judicial scrutiny. Other safeguards will include the Secretary of State reporting regularly to Parliament on the number of orders made. There will be independent annual review of the powersas now with the part 4 powersand annual renewal of them. I am considering separately what role the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House might play in that regard.
	The Government of course intend to ensure that any future powers that we take in legislation are wholly compatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, and if necessary we will employ a new derogation to that effect. I have sought advice from the director general of the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the powers that we need to deal effectively with the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and to deal with British and foreign nationals whom we have grounds to believe are engaged in terrorism. On the basis of that advice, my judgment is that the range of powers that I have outlined, including a criminal sanction for breach, will be essential if we are to contain the threat that those who may be made subject to control orders pose to public safety.
	I told the House on 16 December that I intended to renew the part 4 powers as necessary. However, my desire is to introduce a Bill to give effect to control orders as soon as is practicable. I can see advantages in enacting the Bill, if it is possible to do so, to a time scale that makes renewal unnecessary. Should that not be possibleI acknowledge that there are serious time pressuresI will seek to renew the part 4 powers for the limited time necessary to put the new arrangements in place. I will need to lay the renewal order in draft, and I will do so tomorrow.
	For this reason, I will not be revoking the certificates on the current detainees between now and when the new legislation is in place, unless, of course, the threat that they pose changes and they no longer meet the criteria for certification. Those currently certified and detained were certified as being suspected international terrorists on the basis of a careful Security Service assessment of the significant threat that they pose. That judgment has been upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We believe that those detained under the part 4 powers continue to pose a threat to national security, and that we should seek to ensure that we take all necessary steps to address that threat.
	These are all very difficult issues, with no easy answers. A careful balance has to be struck between the rights of individuals and the protection of society against threats from organisations that seek to destroy central attributes of our society, such as freedom of belief, speech and association, freedom of expression and even our central democracy. All parts of our societyParliament, the legal system and the medianeed an open debate about this so that we understand the complexities of the security situation that we face. I will shortly be bringing forward detailed proposals for the best way to conduct that debate.
	My principal responsibility as Home Secretary is to preserve our democracy against those who seek to destroy it through terrorist attacks. The threat is real, and I believe that the steps I am announcing today will enable us more effectively to meet that threat. I am, of course, well aware that the proposals I am making today represent a very substantial increase in the executive powers of the state in relation to British citizens who we fear are preparing terrorist activities and against whom we cannot proceed in open court. That will be contentious, but I believe that the need for us to protect ourselves against the threat justifies the changes I propose. I commend the statement to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement, and more than that, for early notification of the substance of what he would say. I commend him for his welcome recognition of the primacy of law, and the concomitant seriousness with which he treated the judgment of the House of Lords. I also commend him for his efforts with the Governments of the countries from which the current Belmarsh detainees come. The claim from the Home Office that the current arrangements were only a prison with three walls always rang hollow when detainees had reason to fear execution on return to their home countries. I wish him good fortune with his undoubtedly difficult task on that frontit is obviously long overdue.
	I also welcome the Home Secretary's announcement of a debate on the proper balance between liberty and security, which is central to the considerations before us today, and also long overdue. As I have said before, the task of the Home Secretary is not only the protection of life, as he describes it, but the protection of our way of life. It is a self-defeating exercise to sacrifice liberty in defence of liberty. Throughout our history, millions of British subjects have sacrificed their lives in defence of the nation's liberties, and it would be a sad paradox if we were to sacrifice a nation's liberty in defence of our own lives today.
	From the perspective of those currently detained in Belmarsh and other foreign nationals, the proposal is clearly and undoubtedly an improvement. House arrest is better than imprisonment, even without any access to a garden, a phone, the internet, friends or relatives, which is effectively the state of detainee G today. The lower range of measures, down to tagging, only is clearly still better, and allows the Home Secretary to meet the House of Lords requirement for proportionality.
	More concerning, however, is the intention to extend the proposals to British subjects. Some of the most ancient rights of Britons are those of natural justice: the right to presumption of innocence; the right of a person to know the charge against him; and the right to see or hear the evidence brought. All those rights are absent under the SIACSpecial Immigration Appeals Commissionrules. That is why Ian MacDonald, the Government's special advocate who resigned before Christmas, described the rules as
	contrary to our deepest notions of justice.
	It is undoubtedly a Kafkaesque process. Will the Home Secretary explain whether, and how, he will bring the process more in line with normal rules of British justice, especially as it will now apply to British citizens?
	I understand why the Home Office likes to describe the procedure as a sort of anti-terrorist ASBO, as it does in this morning's press, but we should not kid ourselvesit is not. The upper end of the scalehouse arrestis administrative detention. It is public internment. We know that throughout history internment has generally backfired, because of the resentment that it creates, so unless the process is clearly just, the Home Secretary could find himself confining one known terrorist only to recruit for our enemies 10 unknown terrorists. Justice must be seen to be done, because the perception of injustice could completely destroy or reverse the effectiveness of the proposal.
	One detailed aspect of the proposal that must be understood is whether the control orders will be time limited or open ended. There is a world of difference between indefinite detention and a time-limited control order. Will the Home Secretary explain in detail how he thinks those orders will be used?
	Even those of us with strong civil libertarian instincts recognise that these have to be compromised occasionally in the interests of security. However, that should happen only after all the avenues within our normal systems of democracy and justice have been exhausted. So the legitimacy of the Home Secretary's proposals rests on his having tried every other normal legal option first.
	Over the years, many peoplenot only one Committeehave recommended making more such terrorism cases capable of being brought to trial by the use of intercept evidence. The most recent example is the eminent report by Lord Newton. All those studies are at odds with the review described in the Home Secretary's statement.
	I understand that there may be practical difficulties, but I ask the Home Secretary to revisit the issue, and consider whether the mechanism proposed by Lord Newtonspecifically the use of an independent security-cleared examining judge, who collates the sensitive information, ensures that it is fair and presents it to the court, but who prevents defence lawyers from going on fishing expeditionscould be used more generally to allow sensitive intelligence information of all sorts to be brought before the court. We are virtually the only major country in the world that does not use intercept evidence in court. That must make it even more difficult to bring terrorist cases to trial, and as such, degrades both our safety and our system of justice.
	I repeat that I would be far more comfortable accepting the Government's proposals if I were convinced that every other legal avenue had been exhausted before we got there.
	The Home Secretary, as I understand it, intends that he will report on the process of detention to Parliament through the Intelligence and Security Committee. That is obviously sensible. However, I also believe that there should be a regular report back on the Floor of the House. That, of course, would be less detailed, because it would be openbut I continue to believe that the House of Commons in open session is still the best defender of liberty and justice for British citizens.
	The Opposition will look very carefully at the detail of the proposals when the measures are laid before the House. Clearly, this issue has to be resolved as soon as possible. But it is vital to get it right, and in doing so protect our system of justice.
	We should remember the words of Benjamin Franklin:
	They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
	It is the job of us all to try to get an outcome that preserves for our citizens both liberty and safety, and the Opposition will do all they can to achieve both those aims.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I appreciate the approach that he has taken. It is the case, both in the Intelligence and Security Committee and elsewhere, that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement about how to approach these issues.
	I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed my proposals for a substantial debate on these matters. In due course I will talk to him and his colleagues about how we might best take that forward. I am happy that there should be a regular report back on the Floor of the House, and there are already some vehicles for that.
	I would observe that when we have that debate it is important to recognise that the threats that we face are very different from the threats that Benjamin Franklin was trying to address.

David Davis: He was a revolutionary.

Charles Clarke: He was indeed a revolutionary in various respects, though rather an eccentric revolutionary. I think that I am right in saying that he used to stand naked in front of his windows to expose himself to the community as a whole. I am not sure that there is anybody doing that at the moment. [Interruption.] I do not recommend it.
	I wish to make it clear that the Home Office was not involved in any briefing on these proposals. It has been at pains to come first to the House on these matters. A phrase such as anti-terrorist ASBO is not one with which I would agree; I do not think that it is right in the context of the process.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on proportionality. He raises serious points on UK subjects but I put it to himhe knows that this is the casethat we have to address a reality, which is that there are UK subjects ready to use action to destroy the society of which we are a part. It is my obligationand I think it is one shared by the right hon. Gentlemanto deal with that.
	In terms of what the right hon. Gentleman says about going as far as we can to pursue normal rules of justice, to explore all avenues and to pursue all options, I agree with him. As I have said, prosecution in the courts is the best way to address these matters. That is the right way to proceed. We should notI know that he does nothide from the fact that all avenues having been explored, and so on, there are still issues that arise, including from some UK citizens. They are very small in number but they have to be addressed and they cannot be ignored.
	On procedure, as I said in my statement, there will be independent judicial scrutiny involving the hearing of evidence in open and closed session against the imposition of any order or any subsequent variation of an order. I envisage the use of special advocates in the closed sessions. There will be a mechanism for reviewing and modifying the conditions of any order as circumstances change. The new mechanism will itself be subject to independent judicial scrutiny. Individuals will be served the order and will be able to challenge both it and the conditions that it imposes. The subject of the order will be told as much as possible, commensurate with the need to safeguard sensitive intelligence material. Further details will be in the Bill that I shall publish.
	In response to the right hon. Gentleman's point about whether control orders will be indefinite in operation, I say that the order can be varied. The controls can be changed if the threat that the individual poses changes or diminishes over time. The orders can be challenged and they will be regularly reviewed, as I have indicated. On intercept evidence, I have set out the reasons clearly why I have taken the view that I have. Principally, it would not significantly increase our ability to secure convictions in this area. Technology is changing so rapidly that we should take account of that process. That said, I will continue to keep the situation under review, and be informed by the right hon. Gentleman and other Members as we consider these questions.
	I am delighted that the official Opposition take a broadly constructive approach on these matters. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers the difficult question of the balance of liberty and security, even for UK subjects, to recognise the obligations that we all have to put security at the centre of our preoccupations.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for the advance notice that he gave of his statement, and particularly for the constructive approach that he has taken on this issue. For three years the Government have appeared to be dragging their feet, but we now have the sense that the new Home Secretary, in particular, is genuine about finding a way forward. Liberal Democrats will give serious consideration to the measures proposed, especially to the control orders that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Will he confirm that the standard of proof required for those orders will be very high? How many control orders does he envisage being issued? Is it likely that there will be more than the 17 cases of detainees now being held?
	The idea of holding individuals in house detention is another solution that, again, we shall examine. Is the right hon. Gentleman really looking at ways in which that could be done without requiring a derogation from our human right commitments?
	I am disappointed that the Home Secretary has ruled out the use of intercept communications in securing trials. I understand that they may not be helpful in the case of the current detainees, but does he acknowledge that in future cases information gained from phone tapping could be relevant, and could be used to obtain a trial? I simply ask that the right hon. Gentleman keep the door open on this issue.
	I remain concerned about the idea of returning detainees to host countries. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that any agreement to do that would require strong reassurances on human rights from those countries, and that detainees should be able to challenge any arrangement if they felt that the process was unsafe?
	We shall be very constructive about legislation introduced on this issue. We are aware that the March deadline for renewing the derogation is looming. Our priority will be to balance the security of this country with the need to maintain strong principles of justice. Based on what I have heard today, I am encouraged in the belief that we can achieve cross-party support.

Charles Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general approach that he has taken, and for the constructive way in which he is ready to consider these matters. I acknowledge with him that it will be necessary to scrutinise the proposed legislation in detail, and I look forward to constructive proposals, should they come from the Liberal Democrats.
	The standard of proof for the orders will be very high, as it correctly should be. There is nothing that I can constructively say to the House about numbers. We have no ambition to have significantly more control orders than the current number of cases. The whole point is that we cannot anticipate what threat will arise. The way to proceed is through the reporting procedures of various kinds that I have suggested, so that the House can consider the position and come to a view on the use of the orders once they are established.
	On the derogation question, we are looking into all aspects of control orders in the context of the need to derogate. As I said in my statement, it is possible that we will need to seek to derogate from the European convention. Obviously that is a matter that we will take extremely seriously, and it would be put forward on the basis that the House considered appropriate at the time. But at the end of the day, my first responsibility is security, as I said earlier, and that is the approach that I will take.
	On intercept evidence, I will keep that matter under review, but the fact is that surveillance sources for particular decisions include intercepts and a wide range of other surveillance measures that would not be addressed by the measure and could put people at risk. That is why the review concluded that allowing intercept evidence would not solve the problem in a significant number of cases.
	On host countries, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for strong assurances and we would take that issue into account in any memorandum of understanding. At the end of the day, it is for the courts to make their judgment on the issues that arise. I am glad that he wishes to balance security and justice. These are difficult questions and I hope that he will participate in active public debate about them because, for the sake of all parties in the House, it is important that we achieve the correct balance.

John Denham: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the specific point about whether the orders that, at the extreme, could involve house arrest, would be issued for an indefinite period or whether they would be statutory and subject to review? He is right, I am afraid, to acknowledge that, in future, the role played by British citizens in this type of terrorism may become more significant than has been the case in the past, but the use of powers against British citizens will attract more public concern and scrutiny than their use against foreign nationals. Will he look carefully at whether he needs a more structured process of advice before issuing an order so that he is not simply dependent on the advice of the security services? There could be some independent examination of whether a case is prosecutable or an independent assertion that some measures are necessary, even though an individual cannot be prosecuted.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments. On the timing of the orders, I want to emphasise that the orders can be varied. The controls can be changed if the threat that the individual poses changes or diminishes over time. They can be challenged and they will be reviewed regularly. That goes a significant way towards dealing with the concerns that the Home Affairs Committee may have. On the point about UK nationals, my right hon. Friend is correct and his Committee has played an important role in trying to address these issues in its debates. I hope that in the debate that I suggested was necessary, it will play the role that it has played in the past and stimulate substantive discussion. I am extremely grateful that my right hon. Friend, who has particular specialist knowledge and experience, has acknowledged that it is necessary to look at powers to deal with UK nationals, and not simply deal with the points made by the Law Lords in their judgment, given that there are issues of serious risk. It is a difficult question, but I very much appreciate his Committee's understanding approach.

Francis Maude: No one will need to be persuaded that the use of powers such as the existing ones and those that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce will make Britain a safer place. That almost goes without saying. However, does he acceptI think that he doesthat the price we pay for living in a free country is the fact that we are more vulnerable? We cannot make an open or free society completely safe. While the powers that he proposes to introduce to replace part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act are less draconian than the existing powers, he is extending their scope. It is very important that such powers, which extend beyond our usual conception of the rule of law, should not become part of the fabric of our society.

Charles Clarke: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's general point, and I have tried to address it. However, there is a serious point to be made. He is right to raise the question of safety and the balance between safety and liberty, but some of the threats that we are talking about, whether a twin towers-style disaster or an attack on an underground system or something else, are catastrophic, and thus different in nature from other safety issues that we address and take into the balance. It is extremely important that we recognise the threat that we may be under in those circumstances and deal with issues of reality when considering what steps to take.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the expedition with which he has acted and the inspired way in which he has responded to the very difficult and challenging judgement by the House of Lords. For what it is worth, I accept his view and that of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), that there is a real threat that must be addressed. However, may I ask him about the prosecution avenue? Can he give the House an assurance that that will always be fully explored? Perhaps we need to revisit terrorism legislation to explore the width of some of those offences.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's general support. His knowledge and expertise in these areas is well known and I appreciate his approach. On his specific point about exploring the prosecution process and ensuring that we can pursue it at all levels, I can provide the assurance that he is seeking. I said in my statement that prosecution must always be the principal way of acting and it is certainly the best and most effective way of doing so. That is what we will pursue, which is why I am ready to accept his advice and look carefully at ways in which we can expedite that goal. However, I acknowledge, as I did in my statement, that there will still be cases where prosecution is not possible for various reasons, which is why I have proposed the regime that I set out today.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State kindly clarify part of his statement that jumped off the page as I read it? He made it clear that he will progress the memorandums of understanding with various countries with energy and assured the House that Baroness Symons has received a positive response to the discussions that she has had. If that is the case and the Secretary of State is successful, as we hope that he will be, does that mean that in the long term deportation of foreign nationals will take place before control orders are introduced? Could we therefore end up with only UK nationals being subject to control orders?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady is right that that is possible. It is critical that the House, the country and the legal system acknowledge that terrorism is an international activity that poses an international threat. It is not something which we can deal with simply within our own borders, so it is important that I seek to find agreements with other countries about how we deal with these things. There are agreements between other countries to deal with some of these issues and I believe that we should try to take that forward. Does that mean that, logically, one could reach the point where all foreign nationals were deported to their home countries and control orders would apply only to UK nationals? The answer to that question is yes. Frankly, however, I do not think that that is likely. It would take a considerable time to reach a point where deportation was the route for all foreign nationals. However, even if the logical outcome were fulfilled, I would still say to the House, as I tried to highlight in my statement, that we need a power to deal with UK citizens who wish to bring about the destruction of our society in various ways and whom, for reasons that we have discussed, we cannot prosecute.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Home Secretary is right to identify the fact that this will represent the most substantial increase in the state's executive powers over the citizen for 300 years. First, does he acknowledge as a matter of principle, liberty and law that executive detention that is indefinite in nature and without trial is precisely that, whether in Belmarsh or a bungalow? Secondly, will he tell us whether independent judicial scrutiny will be undertaken by the High Court through judicial review or by another body?

Charles Clarke: I think that I have already addressed the second point made by my hon. and learned Friend in my response to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), but I will repeat it. Independent judicial scrutiny will involve the hearing of evidence in open and closed session against the imposition of any order or any subsequent variation of an order. I envisage the use of special advocates in the closed sessions and there will be a mechanism for reviewing and modifying the conditions of any order as circumstances change. That new mechanism will be subject to independent judicial scrutiny itself. Individuals will be served an order and can challenge it and the conditions that it imposes. The subject of the order will be told as much as possible, commensurate with the need to safeguard sensitive intelligence material. I think that that deals with the point made by hon. and learned Friend, but I am ready to consider any other points that he and other Members may wish to make, both in Committee and in the House.
	On the 300-year history, I was fairly up front in saying in my statement that there was a real issue here that needs to be tackled. In the 300-year history that we are talking about, there have rarely been threats of the type and scale that we have to face in these circumstances. That is why I have proposed the steps that I set out. We will have strong debate about these matters and there will be people who think that, even under the threat that we face, such powers are unacceptable. I understand that, but I consider it my responsibility as Home Secretary to do whatever I can to ensure the security of the whole of our society and what it stands for, and that is what I intend to do.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the control orders, especially house detention, are capable of destroying the lives and livelihoods of individuals who have been convicted of no offence. Does he understand that many of us are wholly opposed to such a proposal and will vigorously oppose it wherever it is made? I hope it will be made on the Floor of the House and that the Bill will be taken exclusively on the Floor of the House. I also deplore the fact that he continues to hold in detention the 12 detainees whose detention has been pronounced unlawful by the highest court of appeal in the country.

Charles Clarke: I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's deploration, but I do not accept it. Those people have been the subject of testimony by serious concerned organisations that understand what they are about and we are not prepared to take the risk of such people at liberty destroying our society. I am very clear about that. He speaks about conviction in this context, and I note that he is wholly opposed to the proposals. I know his long history on these matters, and I am sure he will make his arguments with his usual eloquence. However, as he comes from a legal family of such distinction, I put it to him that the issues that I am talking aboutthat is, the relationship between security and libertyare central issues that the judiciary and the whole of the legal process must address as much as anybody else, which is why I want a national debate. It is essential that the issues are addressed, because if he does not understand the threat that is posed to every right for which he and his family have fought over generations, he is missing the central point of the entire debate.

Donald Anderson: The positive response of those who speak on behalf of the Opposition parties indicates a realistic recognition both of the balance achieved by my right hon. Friend and of the nature of the threat at a time of biological weapons, chemical weapons, dirty bombs and so on. Can my right hon. Friend say more about the other part of the twin-track approachthat is, the relationship with countries from which those who are considered a significant threat come? What are the minimum and specific assurances that he will seek from those Governments?

Charles Clarke: I appreciate the general support given by my right hon. Friend. His own experience in the foreign service leads him to speak with great authority on these matters. There are two aspects to his question. First, it is important that in any country to which deportation is considered, the individual does not face torture, the threat of death and so onthe various issues that are rightly raised in the European convention on human rights. Those are questions that we will raise explicitly. It is also importantthis is the second part of the second track, so to speakto recognise that those Governments themselves are sometimes under threat from the same kind of challenges that we have to deal with, and it is important for us to talk to them about how we can deal with these matters. But the fundamental issue is the one that he raises, and it is the reason why I put this in the context of the European convention on human rights at the outset. Obviously the individuals, the courts looking into the situation and others will want to be assured that should those individuals be removed to those countries, they are not at risk of the kind of treatment banned under international law. That will be the bottom line of our consideration of these matters.

Edward Garnier: The Home Secretary will understand that, as a matter of principle, it is no less offensive to detain a man in his house than it is to detain him in prison by virtue of a ministerial edict. Would it not be safer and a better course for the Home Secretary to apply to the courts to have these people detained, on the basis of evidence that may be withheld from the public and which may even be withheld from the respondent to the application? The Home Secretary ought surely to make his application to the courts, rather than allow his ministerial edicts to be reviewed after the event by the courts.

Charles Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that is a possible alternative way of going about it, but I believe that were I to surrender the responsibility of the Executive to the courts to take decisions on these matters, it would in the most real sense be a betrayal of the responsibility that I as Home Secretary and any future holder of this office bear for the security of the state. That responsibility must lie, and in my opinion rightly, with the Executive and in this case with the Home Secretary. To pretend that these matters can be dealt with at one remove by the judiciary on the basis of different issues is wrong. It is right, as the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged in his question, that the decisions that I or others make should be subject to review by the judiciary as to whether they have been correctly carried through. That is entirely proper. For me to say that I bear no responsibility for the matter and pass it on to someone else would be wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that many of us are extremely concerned about the general trend of anti-terrorist legislation, which allows administrative detention? What has happened at Belmarsh is the British equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. If an administrative order is made against an individual based on security information that the Home Secretary has received, and if that is challenged in a court, would all the evidence on which the Home Secretary made that decision be available to the defendant, or would it be merely a rubber-stamping exercise whereby the Home Secretary can detain or restrict indefinitely the movements of a substantial number of people on the basis of secret information?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's record and position on the matter is well known and understood, and we have had many debates about it. It is important to understand the difference between various forms of detention. It is not the case that detention in Belmarsh is the same as in Guantanamo. There is a series of different matters that need to be addressed. On his central point, I said in my statement and I say again that the judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision will work on the basis that the defendant has the right to access all the evidence that can be put to him, subject to the test that making that evidence available does not threaten national security. So there are issues that arise, and which my hon. Friend will no doubt push in Committee when we discuss the matter, but the principle established is that the defendant can have access to the evidence, with the exceptionit is an important exception, which he highlights in his questionof information that would be prejudicial to national security if made public.

Julian Lewis: Given that the most notorious of the detainees, Abu Qatada, has been described by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as being
	at the centre in the UK of terrorist activities associated with al Qa'eda,
	and that it added:
	He is a truly dangerous individual,
	does the Home Secretary agree that it seems strange that there is no aspect of the anti-terrorism law that can be invoked to bring him before a court? Assuming that he and the others have to be let out of Belmarsh, how will it be practically possible to restrict access to telecommunications and the internet unless they are confined in an individual premises and everybody going in to see them is searched and prevented from taking in such communications equipment with them?

Charles Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the fact that judgments of the type that he described are reached does not say anything about the source of that judgment. The question is whether the source can be exposed in open court without risking people's lives, the national security system or whatever. That is the answer to his question. On the second part, he is right. The control order regime that I propose suggests a range of controls dealing with access to telecommunications equipment and so on, as I indicated, which will require policing to work effectively. Is it possible? Yes, it certainly is. Can we establish it? Yes, I am advised that we can. But are there issues that arise about it? Yes, there are. That is what we have to address when we consider the detail of the orders.

David Winnick: Considering what happened in Istanbul and Madrid, how could any Home Secretary not take into account the constant danger of terrorism to our country and our people? Bearing in mind the extended powers, what reassurances is my right hon. Friend giving to the Muslim community to let it know that no community in our country will be targeted and that all law-abiding people have nothing to fear?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial point, with which I completely agree. I have attended two meetings with representatives of the Muslim community to discuss those questions and make the precise point that he mentioned. I have not discussed the proposals that I have introduced today with the Muslim community, because I thought it more appropriate to come to the House before talking to other interests directly, but I will discuss those precise issues with members of the Muslim community to provide reassurance.
	I reaffirm my hon. Friend's point that no law-abiding citizen of this country, whether they are Muslim or Christian and whatever their race, nationality, creed or belief, has anything to fear from the proposals that I have put in front of the House today. The proposals are intended to target those who aim to destroy the democracy within which we all flourish.

Simon Thomas: I accept that the Home Secretary has taken time and care to consider his proposals. Many Back Benchers consider it our responsibility to resist any proposals from the Executive to expand their powers in this way, unless the evidence and the need is overwhelmingly demonstrated in this House. To that end, I support the call from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for the matter to be debated on the Floor of the House, because all hon. Members will have something to say about the central question of the proportionality and application of the proposals.
	In his reply to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), the Home Secretary did not state the number of British citizens whom the proposals might affect. Although he may not be able to answer that question today, by the time that we examine the Bill, he must be able to say how many British citizens are likely to be affected and how many British citizens are being investigated in the context of terrorist activities. For example, animal rights terrorism shows how such measures could be applied much more widely than the context that we have been debating today. The proposals will considerably enhance the Government's powers and we must take a careful, measured approach.

Charles Clarke: I want to make three points. First, this is not a numbers game, although numbers are important. As I said in my statement, the part 4 powers have been applied to 17 people since they were enacted, which provides a context. I agree that it is right for the Government of the day to report to the House in a variety of different ways on the number of cases, the situation and so on, but it is not a numbers game.
	Secondly, I accept the hon. Gentleman's important point that, before any legislationin particular, legislation that might involve a derogation from the European convention on human rightsis introduced, a detailed and substantive case must be presented to this House and the other place before they assess what to do. That process is needed to address his point about proportionality, which I accept is an obligation on any Home Secretary who seeks to introduce legislation.
	My third point is an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. Although it is important to recognise that the role of Members of Parliament is to act as a check on the Executive and therefore question the Executive, it is also the role of Members of Parliament, as the elected representatives of their communities, to address such issues in the round and decide in the interests of the country as a whole how to deal with the balance between rights and security. That is why I have proposed a broad debate, which we have got. In my opinion, hon. Members should not simply ask, What are the Executive doing? How can we deal with them? That is one of their responsibilities, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that another important responsibility is for elected representatives, and in particular political parties, to debate such matters in the round rather than simply existing as an anti-Executive element.

Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the Home Secretary's answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), can we take it that judicial review by the High Court has been excluded in favour of action by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? Will the Home Secretary's decisions be subject to the High Court and what is the position on judicial review?
	Early in his statement, the Home Secretary said that intelligence reports make it clear that the existence and use of the powers have helped to make the UK a far more hostile environment for international terrorists to operate in, with the result that some international terrorists have been deterred from coming here and that others have left to avoid being certified and detained. Does he know that for a fact or is it informed and educated speculation?

Charles Clarke: On the first point, I have nothing to add to my statement and my answers to previous questions, including the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). On the second point, it is more than informed speculation that the situation is much more secure and that the country is inhospitable for international terrorists. I am proud that the legislation has helped to achieve that result, which I want to ensure is a characteristic hallmark of this country.

John Pugh: Given the Home Secretary's ongoing security concerns and the record on suspicious detainees absconding from custody at John Lennon airport, will the Home Secretary consider improving Customs and Excise as well as legislative change?

Charles Clarke: The proposals in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill have been specifically designed to ensure better co-operation between the various interested agencies, including Customs and Excise. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made, in the sense that we will invest to ensure that enough staff are available to address the threats and the proposals before the House will help immensely in achieving his ambition.

Diane Abbott: Does the Home Secretary accept that many people outside this House welcome his acceptance of the Law Lords' ruling? For some time, many people have said that the legislation is so contrary to any notion of the rule of law that it represents a victory for the terrorist. Will he also accept that, in practice, in the medium term, most of the British nationals who are subject to control orders will be of the Muslim faith? To intern individuals in their own homes in the middle of communities in our great cities will be, if anything, more incendiary than putting them in prison. Many of us welcome the Home Secretary's proposal to hold a full and careful debate to discuss those ideas.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. Her second point follows on from the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). It is important that the debate takes in all communities in this country, including the Muslim community. I reassert that members of the Muslim community have nothing to fear from the measures, unless they are explicitly involved in promoting terrorist activity. That distinction is the core point. If people are promoting terrorism and seeking to engage in terrorism, it is my responsibility to address that situation, whatever their religious faith or race. I cannot say, You are a terrorist, but because you happen to be of x or y faith, it is okay. I cannot adopt that position, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not. However, I agree with her fundamental point that plenty of room exists for misunderstandings around such questions and it is part of my obligation to ensure that as few misunderstandings as possible occur.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and feel that he deserves significant credit for moving so quickly. In the third paragraph of his statement, he discussed our international commitments on suspected international terrorists who are being kept in this country at substantial expense to taxpayers. Deportation with assurances will partly address that problem, but should we not revisit some of those international commitments? Is there not an opportunity for the UN to launch an initiative, too?

Charles Clarke: I am more glad than I can say that the hon. Gentleman has raised the point that we need an international approach to the matter that involves the UN and other agencies, which is why I referred to the UN resolution in my statement. I highlighted the matter because working with other countries is the right way to go. On expenditure, we must spend whatever it takes to maintain our security, and I am determined that we will do just that.

Vera Baird: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the thought that he has put into trying to produce a reasonable solution to a very nearly intractable problem. I welcome his stated preference for trying suspected terrorists. Will he guarantee that that possibility will be pursued vigorously? In his view, will it be possible to put British suspects or any of the Belmarsh detainees on trial, and would changes in criminal procedure help with that? While the Belmarsh men were detained, how were British terrorist suspects, who could not be locked up under that law, being contained? I ask that not in a barbed way but in seeking a way forward.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend, whose experience in these matters is substantial. I can give her the guarantee that she seeks that I will pursue as energetically as I can a process of ensuring that trial procedures and so on are addressed in a way that means that prosecution in court leading to conviction is the best way to deal with these questions. I will consider any changes in procedure to achieve that.
	As for the UK citizens currently involved, the security services have pursued a range of different measures under warrant from me, as Home Secretary, in accordance with the court. However, there have been constraints on the situation, which is why I propose such legislation.

Michael Meacher: While I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's compromise, will he recognise that that is exactly what it is? What is really wrong with the present law is that the standard of proof required, namely reasonable belief or suspicion, is lower even than in civil proceedings; that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and perhaps his own independent judicial inquiry will still not enable detainees to challenge the evidence against them because they cannot see enough of it; and that so-called evidence extracted under torture of a third party is still admissible. Will he address those fundamental points, if not today, in his review of the legislation? In the meantime, will he ensure that his new civil orders, which we welcome, impose strict surveillance conditions, including banning access to the internet and mobile phones, but do not include house arrest, which would breach the human rights convention?

Charles Clarke: I do not accept my right hon. Friend's contention that this is in any sense a compromise. It is notit is an effort to find a way through to deal with the issues. On his specific questions, I dealt with them all in previous answers and I have nothing to add.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have never been soft on terrorism, having taken a great interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and having been in Dar-es-Salaam on the day that al-Qaeda blew up the American embassy? However, certain actions may be justified if there is held to be a threat to the life of a nation. Perhaps what is going on in Iraq in relation to terrorism is a threat to the life of that nation. What similar threat exists in this country as distinct from serious threats like those in the past from the Provisional IRA? Should not such problems be dealt with by the courts rather than by special action through the Executive?

Charles Clarke: Let me make it clear that I absolutely accept that my hon. Friend is not in any sense soft on terrorism. That is not the case, as his personal record clearly shows. Nor, by the way, do I make that charge against others who might oppose our proposals. These are genuine and difficult problems that need to be addressed in a way that reflects that fact.
	As for the courts taking responsibility rather than the Executivethat is, myself as Home SecretaryI go back to what I said earlier. I believe that this is a proper Executive responsibility that should be borne by the Executivein this case, by the Home Secretaryand not by the courts. I accept that it is right for the courts to have the ability to review the decision that is taken: that is why we are putting this process in place. As I said very clearly in my statement, I have explicitly considered the evidence that has been put to me about the very real threats that we have to deal with, and my conclusion is that we are in such a state. That is why I believe that we have to act in the way that I suggest.

Point of Order

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister stated that I said this morning that we are opposed to the development of the Thames gateway. I have said no such thing this morning or ever. In fact, I have publicly recognised the benefit of building on brownfield land. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister merely inadvertently misled the Houseor perhaps he was guilty of a little shameless opportunism.

Mr. Speaker: These things are not a matter for me.

Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions)

David Stewart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable activities relating to certain arrangements involving the acquisition or disposal of land to be regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
	The Bill is designed to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the unguarded from exploitation by the shadowy figures who lurk in the shallow end of the financial services gene pool. It would bring home reversion plans, which are a type of equity release scheme, under the full regulation and protection of the Financial Services Authority. In addition, it would provide a safety net of access to the financial ombudsman scheme and compensation. The Bill would also protect constituents who are, for example, purchasing Islamic products under the Ijara system or have a part- rental, part-purchase home tenure scheme.
	What are equity release schemes and how do home reversion plans fit into the bigger picture? Equity release schemes are basically financial products that allow homeowners to realise the value of their property. There are two main vehicles. The first is the lifetime mortgage, whereby homeowners take out a loan secured on their property. That is already covered by the FSA and is well protected.
	I am concerned about the second typehome reversions. They are subject to little regulation, control or monitoring. Homeowners sell part or all of their home in return for a lump sum, which is usually in the range of 30 to 65 per cent. of the property value. Such homeowners are usually over 60. They have a right to remain in the house under a lease until they die, with the proviso that they maintain the property, and they have to pay rent to the reversion provider. When the elderly person dies, the provider can sell the property. The lump sum received will depend on a series of factors, including the value of the property, which will not necessarily be independently surveyed, and the age, medical condition and life expectancy of the owners.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said in a similar debate:
	Equity rich, cash poor, and slightly senile: the perfect victim for a whole new generation of financial service vultures.[Official Report; 17 December 2003; Vol. 415; c. 275WH]
	The financing of home reversions at the small end of the market is largely about private individuals; there is no central register of reversion transactions. Let me give a few examples of what could happen. A GP could arrange a home reversion for an elderly, confused patient; a private individual could carry out a transaction for a recently widowed neighbour; or a publican could help out an elderly regular at their bar. There are no standards or benchmarking, and there is no protection for the consumer. Those are the perfect ingredients for the unscrupulous to manipulate, misuse and milk the unwary.
	I am not saying that all equity release schemes are a bad thing per se or that I have concerns about the whole industry. For example, the 17 members of the Safe Home Income Plans group provide high standards of consumer protection, with very few complaints and a market share of around 90 per cent. The overall market is worth 1.16 billiona tremendous size. The Treasury estimates that 5 million homeowners over 60 are eligible for equity release plans, with a potential 700 million locked up in their homes.
	The problem relates historically to pension mis-selling, specifically the Equitable Life fiasco. As long as we have an unregulated market, a series of elephant traps will be waiting to snare the unsuspecting and vulnerable pensioner at risk from the modern-day snake oil salesman selling dodgy deals administered by back-street, here-today-gone-tomorrow Arthur Daleys. Home reversions have no licensing requirements, no compensation arrangements, and no comeback from mis-selling. They are about as regulated as the average episode of Celebrity Big Brother.
	In conclusion, the Bill would protect the old and the vulnerable who are considering home reversion equity release products. It would bring the sheriffthe Financial Services Authorityback to the wild west town. It would bring independence through the financial ombudsman scheme and access to compensation. I believe that the Bill has the support of hon. Members of all parties and I strongly commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Stewart, Angus Robertson, Sandra Osborne, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Julia Drown, Sir Archy Kirkwood, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Bill Tynan, Glenda Jackson, John Robertson and Mr. Alistair Carmichael.

Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill

Mr. David Stewart accordingly presented a Bill to regulate financial services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed [Bill 47].

Modernisation of the House of Commons

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have a brief statement to make to the House about today's debate. There will be a joint debate on the three motions in the name of the Leader of the House on sitting hours, connecting Parliament with the public and car mileage allowance. Mr. Speaker has selected all the amendments that have been tabled to the motion on sitting hours. A list has been distributed that also shows the order in which Questions will be put.
	Under the order of the House on 24 January, at the end of the debate, or after three hours, I will call Members formally to move the amendments. If an amendment is agreed to, the Question will immediately be put on any consequential amendments. When the amendments have been disposed of, the Question will be put on the main Question on sitting hours, amended or not, as the case may be.
	The Questions will then be put on the motions on connecting Parliament with the public and on car mileage allowance.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That the following Amendments to Standing Orders be made with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament:
	Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House)
	Line 1, at beginning insert 'Subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 1B (Election of Speaker by secret ballot),'.
	Line 1, leave out from 'Mondays' to 'o'clock' in line 3 and insert 'at half-past two o'clock, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at half-past eleven o'clock and on Thursdays at half-past ten'.
	Line 5, at end insert 'Provided that, when the House sits on a Tuesday or Wednesday which immediately follows a periodic adjournment of more than two days or is the first day of a Session, references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Monday'.
	Line 16, leave out 'Tuesdays and Wednesdays and at seven' and insert 'at seven o'clock on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and at six'.
	Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall)
	Line 4, after 'Wednesdays', insert 'beginning at half-past nine o'clock, which shall be suspended from half-past eleven o'clock until half-past two o'clock and may then continue for up to a further two and a half hours; except that if the Tuesday or Wednesday immediately follows a periodic adjournment of the House of more than two days, the sitting shall be'.
	Line 8, leave out 'that period' and insert 'the periods of two and a half or three hours'.
	Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings)
	Line 1, at beginning insert 'Subject to Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays),'.
	Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays)
	Line 1, leave out paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert
	'(1) Unless the House otherwise orders, the House shall not sit on any Friday other than those on which private Members' bills have precedence.'.
	Line 7, leave out 'each of the Fridays so appointed' and insert 'a Friday on which the House is not sitting'.
	Line 13, leave out 'so appointed' and insert 'on which the House does not sit'.
	Line 24, after ''mendments', insert ', and notices of motions relating to proceedings on bills committed to a standing committee,'.
	Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business)
	Line 20, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or four' and insert ', four o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday or three'.
	Line 23, leave out from 'at' to 'and' in line 25 and insert 'the hour specified in sub-paragraph (i) above'.
	Line 32, leave out 'or four' and insert ', four o'clock or three'.
	Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business)
	Line 23, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or eight' and insert 'eight o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday or seven'.
	Standing Order No. 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure))
	Line 3, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past eight' and insert 'half-past eight o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past seven'.
	Line 5, leave out from 'at' to 'the' in line 7 and insert 'that hour'.
	Line 20, leave out from 'resumed' to 'but' in line 22 and insert 'less than half an hour before the time specified in paragraph (1) of this order,',
	Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business)
	Line 28, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or four' and insert 'four o'clock on any specified Tuesday or Wednesday or three'.
	Line 38, leave out 'or four' and insert ', four o'clock or three'.
	Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
	Line 24, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or four' and insert 'four o'clock if it is a Tuesday or Wednesday or three'.
	Line 29, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past ten' and insert 'half-past ten o'clock on a Tuesday or Wednesday or half-past nine'.
	Line 55, leave out 'or four' and insert ', four o'clock or three'.
	Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions)
	Lines 38 and 45, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.
	Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates)
	Line 18, leave out 'Tuesday or Wednesday or four' and insert 'four o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday or three'.
	Line 23, leave out from 'at' to 'and' in line 25 and insert 'the hour specified in sub-paragraph (a) above'.
	Line 27, leave out 'or four' and insert ', four o'clock or three'.
	Standing Order No. 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provision)
	Line 5, leave out 'ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock)' and insert 'the moment of interruption'.
	Line 15, at end insert ', four o'clock or three o'clock'.
	Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees)
	Line 13, leave out from 'Mondays' to second 'in' in line 15 and insert 'between the hours of twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock in the morning and half-past one o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesdays or Wednesdays or between the hours of twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock in the morning and half-past twelve o'clock'.
	Line 20, leave out 'or'.
	Line 21, after 'o'clock', insert 'or twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock'.
	Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings))
	Line 45, leave out from 'at' to the end of line 48 and insert 'the time specified in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), subject to the proviso to that paragraph'.
	Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings))
	Line 44, leave out from 'at' to the end of line 47 and insert 'the time specified in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), subject to the proviso to that paragraph'.
	Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings))
	Line 57, leave out from 'at' to end of line 60 and insert 'the time specified in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), subject to the proviso to that paragraph'.
	We have three motions before us: on sitting hours, connecting Parliament with the public and phasing in the lower car mileage allowance, tabled at the request of the Members Estimate Committee.
	First, I shall deal with sitting hours. The House agreed to our current hours in October 2002 by a narrow margin. Many Members have always been strongly opposed to the change and others have not liked how it has worked in practice. It was my aim as Leader of the Commons to try to find a consensus, and in the past 18 months the Modernisation Committee has taken extensive evidence from Members of Parliament, parliamentary staff and other interested groups such as the Lobby journalists. We were also helped by the Procedure Committee's survey last spring and I am grateful for that. However, no consensus was achievable. Opinion remains divided, with the principal point of difference being the hours on Tuesday.
	The motion is in line with the Modernisation Committee's recommendation. It looks discouragingly complex, but its purpose is simple: to make permanent our current hours on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, to bring forward the start of the sitting to 10.30 am on Thursday and to allow Standing Committees to sit an hour earlier in the afternoon. An explanatory memorandum, which sets out exactly how Standing Orders would be changed, has been made available.
	My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has tabled amendments to the motion, which would return Tuesday to the old hours2.30 pm to 10 pmas on Monday. Those amendments have been tabled to assist the House to come to a clear decision, but both the Deputy Leader and I shall vote against them.
	I believe strongly that the package recommended by the Modernisation Committee represents the best way forward. It maintains our new hours, while addressing the widespread concerns about the compression of the working week.

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way at this early state. I hope that, in the course of his remarks, he will give us his assessment of how he believes the new hours have enhanced the role of Parliament and the House of Commons, especially vis--vis the Government. Those assessments would be useful.

Peter Hain: I shall happily give the right hon. Gentleman my assessment now, since he has asked me. The House has worked harder since the new hours were introduced. More scrutiny takes place.

Eric Forth: Rubbish.

Peter Hain: Let me give him the figures. In 2002, the last year of the old hours, the House sat for 1,176 hours in 150 days. In 2003, the first year of the new hours, the House sat for 1,206 hours in 153 days. It sat for longer and there was more time to hold the Government to account. In 2004, the House sat for even longer1,239 hours.

Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: No, I should like to finish the point because the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has asked for the facts and I am providing them.
	In addition, Select Committees also worked harder. Their meetings increased from 1,037 to 1,312 in the period that I outlined. The number of Committee reports increased from 201 to 232. Hansard shows Commons activity increasing under the new hours. Its length increased from 159 to 165 pages per day after the new hours were introduced. The new sitting hours therefore provide more opportunity for scrutiny and for the House to hold the Government to account.

Oliver Heald: Does the Leader of the House realise that what matters is the time available to cover the amount of legislation that the Government introduce? Although there may have been a few extra hours here and there, there has been a tidal wave of legislation. I do not necessarily mean the number of Acts of Parliament; I mean the number of pages in legislation, as the House of Lords Committee made clear last year.

Caroline Flint: What has that got to do with it?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is making a point about programming, as he habitually does, I point out that we held a debate on that late last year and decided the matter. We are now debating sitting hours.
	The opponents of the new hours are confounded by the facts. The House sat for longer and had more chance to question Ministers and hold the Government to account under the new hours.

Robin Cook: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the robust case that he is making. Will he spell out to the House that we have the flexibility to sit for longer precisely because of the earlier hours? I understand that we are unlikely to finish voting today until between 8.30 pm and 9 pm. Would my right hon. Friend care to remind hon. Members that, under the old hours, that would mean finishing voting between 11.30 pm and midnight, which is an unattractive time to go home by public transport in London?

Peter Hain: I agree with my right hon. Friend, whose distinguished period as Leader of the Commons saw the major reform of moving towards more modern hours. He is right that if we added an extra couple of hours to a 10 o'clock finish this evening, we would be up until midnight and perhaps beyond. Is that a good time for Members of Parliament to decide the laws of the land?

Eric Forth: Yes.

Peter Hain: I do not believe that our constituents think that we should make the laws of the land when absolutely knackered in the middle of the night.

Julian Lewis: A question arises about the quality of activity during the sitting hours. I have just had to make a hard choice. I was in the Chamber for the statement and so I have had to choose between having lunch and listening to the Leader of the House. I believe that I made the right choice, but I put my head in the Tea Room and saw that scores of his colleagues and mine had decided to have lunch rather than listen to him. Would not it be nice if we could both eat and listen to the opening speeches in major debates?

Peter Hain: I hear mutters of Bring a packed lunch, but I believe that that is against the rules of the House. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made the right choice. He would have a far healthier existence if he had lunch rather than listened to me. We are considering a substantive point, not when one can grab lunch. Members of Parliament always find it difficult to grab lunch if they are busy.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Peter Hain: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make progress because there is a time limit on speeches and I therefore want to limit mine so that others can get in.

Nicholas Winterton: May I ask the Leader of the House for clarification? He has quoted a statistic relating to Hansardthe Official Reportstating that it now contains more pages. Was he including reports of the sittings in Westminster Hall in those calculations? It is important to accept that we now have a complementary Chamber that often holds debates at the same time as those in this House. Hansard will therefore inevitably have more pages, because it records Westminster Hall as well as the Chamber of the House.

Peter Hain: Westminster Hall is part of the scrutiny to which we subject Ministers[Hon. Members: Ah!] It is. However, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the figures that I gave the House exclude written questions. This is about the debating time on the Floor of the House.

Patrick Cormack: Surely the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was slightly disingenuous. After all, there are no votes in Westminster Hall on any matter at any time, and all the debates there are either Adjournment debates or examinations of Select Committee reports. That is not holding the Government to account. This is a smokescreen that the Government have put up to disguise their contempt for this Chamber.

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but, distinguished parliamentarian though the hon. Gentleman is, I have to refute that fully.
	The truth is that, under this Government and under the new sitting hours, we have seen increased sitting times, a greater opportunity for Back-Bench Members to make their case to a Minister in Westminster Hall, and greater Select Committee activity. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has made more statements to the House, thereby being held accountable to it, than his predecessor, and we have established a procedure whereby he can be questioned regularly by the Liaison Committee. That all adds up to considerably more scrutiny. However, the issue that we are discussing today is the opportunity for the House to have more modern sitting hours.

Alan Williams: May I endorse what the Leader of the House said about Westminster Hall? The important thing is that Select Committee reports are now debated, and Membersnot only those on the Committee in questionare able to take part in those debates. Under the previous Conservative Administration, those reports simply gathered dust on shelves.

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for endorsing the central point that I am making. Over the past few years, we have had the great advantage of sitting in more modern conditions andas I want to discuss in a moment, if I am allowed to get thereimplementing the modernisation of the House, in common with the modernisation of the conditions of other public sector workers and others elsewhere, that the House has voted for. In addition, as my right hon. Friend points out, there is now a greater opportunity for Select Committee reports to be debated in Westminster Hall and for Ministers to be present at those debates. That enhances the scrutiny and the excellent work of the Select Committees.

Martin Salter: Does the Leader of the House agree that attempts to ridicule his figures by citing Westminster Hall carry no weight whatever? The figures show an increase in activity from 2002 to 2003 to 2004this spans a period before the change in hours and the period after itbut Westminster Hall has been successfully in existence since 1999, so the arguments from the Conservative Benches carry no weight whatever, either in logic or in fact.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches seem to be saying, Don't confuse us with the facts. I am presenting the facts. They might take a different view from mine on sitting on Tuesday evenings, and they are entitled to do so. I respect their sincerity and their different view of how this Chamber should operate. However, they cannot advocate a change back to the old hours by saying that the Commons has worked less hard under the new ones. On the contrary, we are working harder.

Lynne Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to an hon. Lady.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) commented on the length of time that we might spend voting tonight. Could we not deal with this problem by having a more modern voting system, so that each Division did not take 15 to 20 minutes?

Peter Hain: I am sorry, but on this matter I am a traditionalist. The present system has its advantages. For example, as a Cabinet Minister, colleagues bump into me regularly in the Lobby during Divisions, which provides me with an opportunity to be nobbled and for representations to be made to me.
	By sitting an hour earlier on Thursday, we will make it again a day on which major business can be scheduled, re-balancing the working week while ensuring that whipped business ends early enough for Members to get to their constituencies on Thursday night. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) would have the effect of deferring almost all divisions after 6 pm on a Thursday. I understand the reasons for this, and I have discussed the matter with him. Members, particularly those with distant constituencies such as his should be able to get away promptly after 6 o'clock. I am very sympathetic to that, which is why we brought forward the finishing time on a Thursday to 6 o'clock in the first place. As a business manager, I shall be mindful of this issue when planning the business for a Thursday, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of it.
	However, the amendment would mean that decisions on major businessincluding Second Reading debates on Billscould be unresolved for almost a week. I am sure that none of us would find that satisfactory. Let us take as an example a key debate of the kind that has dominated the House over the past couple of years, such as that on Iraq or that on student fees. Under my hon. Friend's proposal, we could have had a situation in which a reasoned amendment was decided on, but nobody knew the outcome, because that amendment might not have attracted the same vote that had gone into the Lobby on the main motion. It would not be right for the House to leave a major decision such as that unresolved. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a vote today but, if he does, I must urge the House to reject it.

Brian H Donohoe: Surely it is for the Leader of the House and the business managers to ensure that business of that nature is not taken on a Thursday. In that way, what I propose could well take place. This would allow people to get away at 6 o'clock. It would also allow meetings to take place and people would know that they could attend them.

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am with him in not wanting delays long after 6 o'clock that would prevent people from catching trains or planes to get them back to the north of England, Scotland, the far west of England or wherever. As business managers, we shall endeavour to stop that happening, but his request would leave me unable to table major legislative business or to take Opposition day debates on a Thursday. Effectively, that would mean that the House was not working a full working week. I am seeking, with widespread support from across the House, to have not only Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday but Thursday as a day on which most, if not all, Members can be present to deal with what is invariably whipped business. My hon. Friend's point is a powerful one, but in scheduling that business, we need to be aware of the need of many Members to get away.
	The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) would have the effect of keeping the starting time on Thursday at 11.30. However, it was the central recommendation in the Modernisation Committee's report that Thursday should be restored to a full sitting day, ensuring that we have a full four-day parliamentary week. I urge the House to reject those amendments.
	I understand and respect the strong feelings of Members who want to change back to the old hours; I know that those views are sincerely held. However, this House has consistently voted for the modernisation of working practices right across the public sector, and we would look very odd if, after only a two-year trial, we reverted to hours designed to suit the lifestyles of our Victorian predecessors, when Members of Parliament were unpaid and could attend only in the evenings because they were earning a living during the day. I would find it difficult to explain to my constituents why we had gone back to making law in the middle of the night. Everybody knows that a Parliament of today would not have started with the sitting hours of yesterday. The House is already competing for attention in an era of 24-hour news and instant communication. It would look old-fashioned if we were to go back to the pattern of evening working that existed before radio and television.

Gerald Howarth: Given that we now have 24-hour news, which we did not have when the old sitting arrangements applied, surely it does not matter if we debate all through the night. The 24-hour news gatherers will be there to receive what we have to offer.

Peter Hain: On that logic, we would be sitting on Christmas day as well.

Eric Forth: Yes!

Peter Hain: Be my guest!
	I strongly urge Members on both sides of the House to join me in voting against the amendments and for the sitting hours motion as it stands.
	The next motion before us, on connecting Parliament with the public, is also intended to address the lack of engagement with the parliamentary process felt by many of our constituents. The House should make itself more accessible, make it easier for people to understand the work of Parliament and do much more to communicate its activity to the general public. Much good work goes on already, but much more needs to be done.
	I hope that the House will agree to give authority to the House of Commons Commission to take forward some key recommendations made in the Modernisation Committee report last year, in particular the proposal for a guide for first-time voters from the House to provide information about Parliament, why it matters, how to vote and so on.

David Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one area of good work is that being done by our own parliamentary education unit and that the challenge that we face is to replicate in the rest of the country what it does so well in the House? That means improving the website and the unit's relationship with local education authorities so that that same work can be done away from Westminster.

Peter Hain: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's point. The evidence that we took on the matter in the Modernisation Committee made it absolutely clear to us that not enough is being done, despite the new citizenship element in the school curriculum, to explain how parliamentary democracy works and make it part of youngsters' education. The LEAs were simply not being linked to the work of the excellent education unit. We want to address that.
	We also went to the National Assembly for Wales and found not only that its education unit is doing much more imaginative work with young people coming into the Assemblywe saw some of that work in actionbut that it has a roadshow that goes out of the Assembly and into schools, making regular efforts to try to connect with young people and educate them about the Assembly. If that can be done in Wales, we should do it across the United Kingdom.

Patrick McLoughlin: I voted against the change when it was introduced by a previous Leader of the House, but I have changed my mind and will today support the motions tabled by this Leader of the House. One of the downsides of the new sitting hours is that our constituents no longer get the opportunity to come down and do a tour of the House of Commons on Tuesday or Wednesday mornings because the House is sitting, which makes it more difficult. Has he therefore taken any further forward the possibility of ensuring that the building is open at weekends so that visitors can see the place then?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes an important pointI, too, have a constituency remote from Westminsterwhich I have discussed with the Officer of the House who leads on these matters. He has an imaginative strategy for attracting more visitors, including from schools, to the House. We shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point.

Ian Lucas: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). My constituents in Wrexham used to be able to come down, have a tour of the House, see it working in the afternoon and go back home, all on the same day. The 2001 changes have prevented that from happening, substantially diminishing my constituents' contact with the House.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, still have the opportunity to do that on Mondays. That is an important point. One point that I have discussed with Officers of the HouseI think there is an understanding about this; I certainly hope sois the fact that Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend and, as it happens, me who are in the same situation should be given at least some priority on Mondays. Those who live nearer Westminster should perhaps be encouraged to apply to undertake such visits on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays.

Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House think that the parliamentary roadshow will be as successful as the euro roadshow?

Peter Hain: Done seriously and done effectively, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, as a good parliamentary democrat, would welcome young people seeing at first hand through our excellent officials in the education unit how Parliament works, why it is so important and what their rights and duties are.
	I have tabled the motion on the car mileage allowance at the request of the Members Estimate Committee, with the support of members of the Committee from all parties. The report of the Members Estimate Committee sets out the background and an explanatory memorandum has been made available.
	The Committee is very conscious of the considerable concern among Members about the abrupt implementation of the sharp reduction in the car mileage allowance, which we agreed last November. As Chairman, Mr. Speaker therefore wrote to me to ask that I table a motion before the House to enable Members to determine whether they favour not altering the decision, but phasing in the new arrangements over the next Parliamentan opportunity that they did not have in Novemberand to decide the appropriate mileage threshold used in determining the rate payable. I have done so. This is a House matter and it is right that the House should have an opportunity to decide.

Peter Bottomley: Can the Houseand, for that matter, the taxpayerknow what the cost will be if the motion is passed?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already making a considerable saving for the taxpayer, given the decision we made last November. That saving will start from the original implementation date of 1 April and continue progressively to increase over the phased period.
	I return to the principal motion. I urge Members to join me in voting for the motion on the sitting hours to implement the proposals recommended by the Modernisation Committee. I hope that Members will not vote for the Tuesday amendments, as I believe that that would be, and would be seen to be in the country, a significant step backwards. It is for the House to decide. Whatever the decision this afternoon, we must accept it as the settled will of the House. I commend the motion.

Oliver Heald: As the Leader of the House said, today's debate is not about the most important issue we face involving sitting hours, which is the lack of time given for the scrutiny of legislation as a result of the Government's routine guillotining of our business and the fact that they now expect the Opposition to play the role of humble supplicants begging them for sufficient time to do our job of scrutinising their Bills and opposing their policies. The so-called programming of legislation is not done by agreement. It is imposed, and it is wrong.
	Although I am about to express views about our sitting times, I think it only right to set the debate in its proper context. What the Government have done in rationing and starving us of the time needed to do our most important job of making the law is a disgrace. Today's proposals will not affect the overall time available to consider Bills and hold the Government to account.
	The House will decide on the question of the sitting hours on a free vote. I accept that, for some Members, this is totemica battle involving modernity and family-friendly hours. Those of us who take a different view are sometimes portrayed as traditionalists, longing for a return to jolly times in the Strangers Bar or the Smoking Room in the evening, but the truth is that that caricature is untrue and for most of us the issue is how to do the job well and fit everything into the limited time that is now available.
	In Britain today, there are no normal working hours. Only about a third of people work nine-to-five and most professional people expect to have to work in the evening at least a couple of times a week: lawyers expect to prepare their cases and teachers expect to do their marking. It is not unusual to have to work in the evenings. In fact, it is quite hard to think of a professional job in which someone can expect their evenings off.
	With the House sitting in the morning every day except Monday, there is increased pressure on time as we try to fit everything into a shorter period. That is particularly bad on Tuesdays, which is a day full of Committee sittings, all-party group meetings, lobbies and constituents' visits. At the same time, the House and Westminster Hall are sitting. I shall give some examples involving what happened yesterday.

Joan Ruddock: Is it not the case that the House is sitting not shorter hours, but different hours? The day has been pulled forward by three hours, so we can do the same amount of work. If the hon. Gentleman is about to complain about bunching on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the solution is in the report of the Modernisation Committee, on which he sat. It is that there should be a full day for debates on Thursdays.

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Lady knows, I am very supportive of the change on Thursdays, which I will come to in a moment, but she is missing a point. I fully accept that the hours of sitting are the same and there is no disagreement between us on that. The point is, however, that whereas under the old hours it was possible to complete one's Committee work and still be in the Chamber for most of the debate, under the current hours it is not. That is why the Chamber is empty on Tuesdays, as I am about to explain.
	If we take yesterday as an example, in the morning, 200 Members from all parties were involved in Standing Committees, Select Committees, all-party groups and the busy programme in Westminster Hall. In the afternoon, 350 Members were engaged in Committee activities and all-party groups. In addition, MPs' private meetings were booked in the W Rooms and elsewhere in the Buildings. We know that there are 59 Cabinet Committees, although we are never told when they sit, but I bet that some of them are on Tuesdays. If we add to that external meetings, launches by all parties, particularly in this busy period, lobbies, constituents visiting Members, constituency correspondence, necessary telephone calls and all the rest, the fact is that there is a great deal of bunching, clashing and difficulty on a Tuesday. At one time, one could finish Committee, hope to have lunch and still go to the debate, or finish Committee in the afternoon and hope to catch most of the debate in the main Chamber, now one cannot.
	The Procedure Committee questionnaire prompted a good response. It showed that less than a third of Members, 31 per cent., said that they wanted to keep the current Tuesday hours. More than half, 52 per cent., wanted to return to 2.30 to 10. Thirteen per cent. wanted a very long day starting at 11.30 and ending with business after 7. Overall, 65 per cent. wanted the House to sit on Tuesday evenings. The same was not true for Wednesdays and Thursdays, when morning sittings were considered more useful, and of course, normally, no Standing Committees sit on Wednesdays.
	To request three days of the week when the House sits in the mornings, and two days when it does not, is not unreasonable. It is not a request for a return to old hours but a call for a balanced week.

Meg Munn: Surely what the hon. Gentleman's list demonstrates is that all MPs have many demands on their time. To suggest that all MPs want to be in the Chamber all the time is complete nonsense. Most MPs follow particular issues and come into the Chamber at the relevant time. The real issue is how MPs manage their time. The fact is that lots of MPs do not feel that they should have to stay here till 10 o'clock at night because other MPs cannot manage their time.

Oliver Heald: Of course, all Members have the opportunity to say what they want in relation to their week. It may well be that different Members of Parliament run their lives in different ways, and that is entirely legitimate. My view, however, is that there is a great deal of clashing of commitments on Tuesdays, which makes life difficult for colleagues. Many people would like to be able to attend more of the main debate in the Chamber on a Tuesday. After all, some of the most important business is often taken on a Tuesday, as it is one of the days that attracts the main debates.

George Howarth: To confirm a point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, one Cabinet member confirmed to me earlier that they were unable to be present for this debate because they had to chair a Cabinet Committee meeting. He made the point that that was because of these hours.

Oliver Heald: The other point is that the times at which we have votes as a result of the Tuesday hours also interfere with the work of Committees.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman gave statistics a few moments ago about people who wanted a return to the old hours on Tuesdays. Will he accept that one statistic that he did not mention is that quite a large number of Members said that they would like to take unwhipped business after 7 o'clock on a Tuesday, such as private Member's Bills? I know that the report clearly identifies that the issue of private Members' Bills will have to be considered in the next Parliament, which I fully accept. That is different, however, from saying that we want to return to the old system of taking three-line Whip business until 10 o'clock. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, on some occasions, particularly near the end of the Session, people moan because we go on after 7 o'clock

Oliver Heald: If, as the hon. Gentleman says, Members take the view that they want to take unwhipped business after 7 o'clock, they ought to vote for the Deputy Leader of the House's motion. The reason for that is that if one votes for the Leader of the House's motion, one is stuck with a firm cut-off at 7 o'clock.
	If I may continue on the Procedure Committee's responses to the questionnaires, the reasons that were given by Members for favouring evening sittings on Tuesday were well thought-through. They were not just, Let's return to jolly evenings in the Smoking Room. The first and foremost reason was that there would be fewer clashes between House, Committee and other meetings, which was raised by 165 Members. The second reason was that there should be more time during office hours for constituency work and to respond to telephone calls, which was raised by 156 Members. The third was that there should be less concentration of meetings, which was raised by 132 Members. The fourth was that it would make more effective use of the parliamentary day and allow more visitors' tours. Other reasons given included improving the collegiate atmosphere, but those attracted little support. The main reasons related to how to do this difficult job well.

Helen Jackson: Is not the main issue that Members of Parliament now have increased resources to manage their constituency and parliamentary business, with secretaries in their offices to answer the telephone and pagers to receive those telephone messages, and what they are asking for is the choice to manage their parliamentary and constituency life successfully within normal working hours, so that they have the evenings to work, not work, or attend other meetings, political or otherwise, as they see fit? That choice will allow them to become real people and to manage their working lives like other professionals that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady has her viewpoint, but I remember talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about how useful the telephone can be, and how one can use it to speak to constituents who have a difficult problem. One can solve a lot of problems on the telephone. I recommend it to the hon. Ladyit is good to talk.

Patrick Cormack: I suspect, though I do not speak for myself, that many would not be influenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Will my hon. Friend draw attention to the admirable evidence given by the Foreign Secretary, however, which is as brilliant an exposition of the case that he puts as one could find?

Oliver Heald: Some of the best evidence that the Modernisation Committee heard on this issue was striking. I have never supported anything other than the return of the Tuesday hours, and some of us were not keen for the Modernisation Committee to lecture the House about what ought to happen on Tuesdays. Some votes were taken, which were recorded in the report and which my hon. Friend will have seen, to the effect that the House should not be lectured, particularly in circumstances in which two thirds of the House want to sit on Tuesday evenings. To have the Modernisation Committee telling us that we are all wrong, as if we are children or foolish, is just not right. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, however, there is no one quite like the Foreign Secretary when it comes to explaining why Tuesday evenings should return.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that apart from the surprise of hearing that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has embraced new technology, this debate is not helped by trying to determine whether there are clashes, whichever shape of hours we get? I remember findingwhen, some time ago, the House sat late every nightthat I had to be in four places at once, dealing with official business.

Julian Lewis: You could have sent your twin.

Angela Eagle: Unfortunately she was not a Member at the time, so she could not have helped me out.
	Clashes are not the issue, especially as we have introduced Westminster Hall sittings, and more events that improve ministerial accountability to Parliament are going on at the same time. Clashes will occur regardless of the shape of our sitting hours. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they do not provide a good enough reason for us to return to late-night sittings?

Oliver Heald: I believe that it used to be possible to spread out the day better, especially on Tuesday, which I think is the busiest day. All the most difficult debates take place on Tuesday or Wednesday, and Tuesdays attract a great many Committee meetings. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House asks, sotto voce, why we do not want to return to the old hours on Wednesdays. Wednesdays do not involve the Standing Committee work load. Yesterday was an example of a day with a very heavy Standing Committee work load.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary Labour party switched its meetings from Wednesday mornings to Monday evenings for a variety of reasons. One was because it wanted to encourage Select Committees to make more use of Wednesday mornings, so that members of both Select and Standing Committees would not find that their meetings clashed as they sometimes do now. I would encourage Select Committees to take that Wednesday morning opportunity, and in that case the hon. Gentleman's argument would not stand.

Oliver Heald: May I pray in aid the Procedure Committee's questionnaire? It shows that Members did not feel the same about Wednesdays as they did about Tuesdays. Perhaps the Leader of the House sees no difference between Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but a wide trawl of Members of Parliament revealed that for them it was a serious issue. Tuesdays were different.

Alice Mahon: I would like to lay the myth that everyone who comes here has always worked from nine till five before. My constituents keep the public services going by the 24-hour clock. I worked two nights a week when my children were little, and I thought that those were normal hours.
	In fact, the parliamentary Labour party's committee stopped meeting on Wednesdays because no one was attending. Attendance is much better since we started meeting on Mondays.

Oliver Heald: A PLP meeting is such an exciting event that it must have been the clashes that stopped Members attending.
	I agree that we should start at 10.30 am on Thursdays. That would enable us to have a full day's business, which is not currently possible on Thursdays. We would be able to have Opposition days, as the Leader of the House pointed out, and also Second Reading debates. What this debate boils down to, however, is whether we should return to our former hours on Tuesdays.
	I do not think that we should deliberately try to create a stressful pattern of life for Members of Parliament. I am not necessarily one to pray in aid the views of psychologists, but it has been suggested that the new hours on Tuesdays are more psychologically stressful than the old hours. [Laughter.] No, no, this is true. In April, in a paper to the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, a Dr. Weinberg reported that a serious study by psychologists at Salford and Lancaster universities had found an increase in symptoms of stress among Members following the introduction of the reforms, and had concluded that the reforms were not working. The amount of stress reported was related to the amount of work that we had to do, and the difficulty involved in juggling demands. On 19 April last year the Manchester Evening News, that great organ, reported that
	the researchers now think the way to make most MPs happy may be a compromise between the new and old rules.
	That is what I support.
	It is not, of course, up to psychologists to tell us how to lead our lives, but surely new Labour would listen to the British Psychological Society.

Angela Watkinson: Unless Members live very close to London, if they leave the House at 7.15 or 7.30 pm on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, by the time they arrive homeunless their journeys are very shortyoung children are asleep in bed. Then in the morning they must leave too early to do the school run. The family-friendly argument does not hold water. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Oliver Heald: Yes, I do. Obviously how serious that is depends on where Members live. It would never be possible for Members based in the north of England, in Scotland or further west to get home in the evenings anyway. My children are all grown up, but if they were young it would not be possible for me to get home to north Hertfordshire in time to see them before bedor even in the mornings, because I would have to get up too early in order to be here for my 8 am meetings.

Several hon. Members: rose

Oliver Heald: I have an embarrassment of riches, but I will give way to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).

Paul Tyler: Before he leaves the point about psychologists, could the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely how the causal connection is established? Might it not be that some Members find life more stressful because when they are in their constituencies they recognise that they no longer have safe seats?

Oliver Heald: As I was about to say, according to the Aberdeen Press and Journal of 19 April, those extra symptoms of stress are known as the Kennedy syndromeafter the leader of the Liberal Democratsbecause
	there is an increase in anxiety and fatigue and a tendency to perspire because of nervousness.
	Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course we cannot make an exact causal connection, and I would never claim to be a psychologist or to know much about the subject; but I thought it right to present the House with evidence from a serious paper from the British Psychological Society, because I think that we should take account of stress and similar issues. There is a big demonstration in Portcullis House today. It is to do with body mass, stress and so forth, so obviously such matters are important.

Anne Campbell: May I return to the subject of family-friendly hours? Many Members live much too far away to visit their families, whatever our sitting hours, but is it right to deny those who live near London the option of doing so?

Oliver Heald: That is why we are having a free vote. If the hon. Lady and I got on a train at 8.45 pm to return to Royston and Cambridge, we would not arrive home in time to see our children, if they were young. Indeed, it would make life very difficult to do that every night, as I am sure the hon. Lady does not. Of course she would become much fitter, because she would be cycling home every day rather than twice a week.

Several hon. Members: rose

Oliver Heald: I think that I had better make some progress.
	The change to the old hours on Tuesdays would give Members more time to spend on constituents and their problems, by means of both correspondence and telephone, and when lobby groups visited they would have more opportunities to meet Members. Another non-sitting morning on Tuesday would allow more school parties to visit the House, particularly from further away.
	I think that many Members do value the social contacts that still take place on Monday evenings, and which ensure that a Member knows other Members in both his or her parties. That has always facilitated the work of the House. The Whips probably worry about it, because it has led to many an all-party campaign, but a number of us would welcome the extension of the Monday hours to Tuesdays.
	Whatever the future of Tuesday sittings, I hope that the decision will be made on the basis of what is in the national interestallowing Members to do the job as well as possiblerather than what is convenient for individual Members. I believe that it would be better to allow more time on Tuesdays for all the tasks that are now required in the lives of busy Members of Parliament.
	The other two motions are supported by both the House of Commons Commission and the Members Estimate Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This may be the appropriate moment to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

George Howarth: I rise to support amendment (a), which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House. I will try to stay within the 10-minute rule, rather than be pulled up at the end, so I will make just a few remarks.
	It seems that we have set out on a journey. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on a genuine effort to see whether consensus could be forged. The only criticism I make is that, having found out where that consensus was, the Modernisation Committee made a recommendation locating it somewhere else entirely. There is a consensusit is just not one that the Committee agrees with. The Procedure Committee report more fully and accurately reflected where the consensus lies. I have signed the amendments that, with lead amendment (a), would restore Tuesday sittings to a 10 o'clock finish.

Helen Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth: No, I am not going to give way to my hon. Friend.

Helen Jackson: rose

George Howarth: I have made it clear that I will not give way to my hon. Friend. The reason isI hope that she will have the opportunity to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speakerthat when one has only 10 minutes to make a serious case, there is not time to give way. Although whenever I speak I try to be generous, on this occasion, I am not going to be.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm for the benefit of the House and the hon. Gentleman that we now have provision for what we call injury time, which allows and indeed encourages the taking of interventions, even during time-limited speeches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but equally, it is up to each hon. Member whether to give way, mindful of the fact that a 10-minute limit can become an 11, 12 or 13-minute limit.

George Howarth: In view of the special pleading of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)a rare eventI will give way, once, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson).

Helen Jackson: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I have discussed this issue on many occasions. Does he agree that many of the hon. Members who will vote to revert to the old hours on Tuesdayparticularly Opposition Members perhaps, but also many Labour Memberswould never have supported the setting up of the Modernisation Committee to instigate the many reforms that it has instigated in Parliament since I have been here?

George Howarth: I have discussed these matters with my hon. Friend on many occasions, as she says, and we have been friends for many years. However, that intervention only confirms me in my view that I should not have bothered to allow an intervention in the first place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) intervened on the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on the issue of family-friendly hours. For someone such as me, whose family is 200 miles away, these are not family-friendly hours. It would be impossible for me to commute back home to Knowsley from Westminster regularly. Hours could never have been family-friendly for me. However, I accept her point. It is not for me to decide what is family-friendly for someone else. Those who choose to base themselves in London will have a different take on what is family-friendly. It is a neutral argument whether the hours are or are not family-friendly. It depends on individual circumstances. We should be working towards what is in the best interests of conducting the business of the House in the best way possible. We should not be bothering ourselves too much with the argument about family-friendly hours, because those will vary from family to family and Member to Member.
	The original report that brought about change argued that the reforms would bring us closer to the public. Like most hon. Members, I keep a fairly careful eye on opinion polls. I do not necessarily change my views in accordance with the polls but it is important to know what people are thinking. In the two years or so since these reforms have been implemented, I have not noticed a huge outpouring of public affection for the people's elected representatives, whichever party they represent. If anything, if I am to judge by opinion polls and what we read in the newspapers, all of ussome more than othersare more unpopular than we were two years ago. If that was the objective, it seems that we have not satisfactorily met it.
	The other argument, which I have always found a bit strange, was that our constituents expect us, like them, to work normal hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for whom I have huge affection, not only because of her contribution in the House but because of the wisdom that she brings to almost all arguments, made the point that in her working life that never was the case. When I do surgeries on Friday evenings, as I am sure many other hon. Members do, never once has a constituent said to me, What are you doing here at 9 o'clock at night doing a surgery with us? We expect you to work normal hours. In fact, sometimes they queue up until half-past 9 to see me. Never once do they say, We don't think it's very good that you are working these long hours to try to resolve our problems.
	The same applies to Saturday mornings. When I help to open the new Northwood community centre on Saturdaythe money was provided by a Labour Governmentno one will be coming up to me and saying, You shouldn't be here at the opening of this community centre. We expect you to be at home having a good rest after your efforts in Westminster on our behalf last week. So that argument does not stack up either.
	I want to finish on the point about what is modernisation and what is not. I was in the House in the 1980s, and used to sit up all night. In fact I once made a speech of two hours and 12 minutes on an amendment concerning the Durham Aged Miners housing association. What I found to say for two hours and 12 minutes I have no idea, but I can guarantee that it did not make the legislation under consideration any better. I accept that those days are gone and should remain in the past. Such filibusteringnot that filibustering could ever take place in the House, Mr. Deputy Speakershould not form any part of our proceedings. I do not want to go back to that.
	Many of our modernisation measures have been for the benefit of the way in which we conduct our business. I support them for that reason. What I do object to, however, is those who say they are modernisers then defining what modernisation is. If some of my hon. FriendsI will not single anyone outdeclare that such and such is modernisation, then by definition it must be modernisation. I think I am a moderniser, but because I do not agree with them, I am branded as some northern male dinosaur who wants to spend all his time in the bars and thinks that is what it is all about. That is the subtext of what many of my hon. Friends have said, and the subtext of what they consider to be modernisation.
	I will be watching football in the Strangers Bar tonight, hoping that it is a draw because I do not like either Manchester United or Chelsea. But that is not what motivates me. How we conduct the business of the House and how we conduct ourselves as a House of Commons motivates me. Therefore, let us not have any more hon. Members saying, We are the modernisers, everyone else is a dinosaur. It is not like that.
	I started by saying that the Leader of the House made a genuine effort to find consensus. We now know where that consensus is. The argument about modernisation should be about that. It should not be about modernisation as defined by someone else simply because that is what they want.

Paul Tyler: A few moments ago, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) described himself as a traditionalist. He should take note that one of my constituentsSir Goldsworthy Gurney, of Bude in north Cornwallinvented and installed the first gas lights in the Chamber. That, of course, made the major difference; until then, the House sat until the daylight hours ceased, when candles had to be lit. If the hon. Gentleman is a true traditionalist, he should propose that we end the sittings of the Chamber when candles have to be lit.
	The advent of those gas lights made it possible for the Members in those days to go off and make their living up the road, in the Inns of Court and the courts, and then to come here after lunch. Those days have gone; one or two Conservative Members may still treat Parliament in that way, but very few. Traditionalists be warned; there is always a precedent for everything, which does not mean that the past is a better place.
	I hope that all Members will approach the subject as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) did just now. There are three key objectives for the compromise that we are seeking to attain. First, surely we should be trying to improve the product of this place. Anyone who has attended and participated in late evening sittings, let alone late night sittingsI remember 1974, when I had to sit up all night as the swing vote on every Committee on which I served, because the Government had no majorityknows that we are not at our best late in the evening and therefore that we do not give legislation or the Executive action of the Government of the day the careful scrutiny and informed votes that it should have.
	The second objective surely must be to communicate better with those who send us here, and to do so at a time and in a form that enables them readily to understand what Parliament is doing on their behalf. I disagree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, who said that we were less popular now because of the change in hours; that is nonsense. The reason why some Members are less popular is because the electorate have been seeing what line they took on, for example, Iraq; I cannot remember which way the hon. Gentleman voted. We have had a better assessment of what the House is doing since the new hours came in because the late night television news, and the overnight early editions that go to his constituency and mine, are much better informed.
	Only thirdly should today's objective be to try to make this place more convenient for those who work here. Every differentand, one might say, difficultMP has different needs, which is why it is important for us all to recognise that the other two objectives come before the differences that we may have in terms of our work needs.

Julian Lewis: As for people being jaded and tired when important votes are taking place, I put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman. With the previous hours, and those that we still have on Mondays, the main speeches of the debatethe opening speeches, in which the main cases for and against the motion are statedhappened at a time when people were relatively fresh, and they did not clash with the hours when people would normally be having lunch. Also, people had dinner at a stage of the debate when there were only a small number of people in the Chamberthose who were waiting to speak. With the new hours, people have to choose constantly between starvation and participation at lunchtime, which does not improve their judgment. In addition, does the hon. Gentleman have any hard data on whether the electorate even know what hours we keep and what hours we stop? I do not think they have the faintest idea.

Paul Tyler: Let me take the last point first. It is clear from the evidence that the Modernisation Committee has taken, and from the discussions that we have all had with those who represent the broadcast and written media, that those concerned find it much easier to interpret the work of Parliament with the present hours, particularly when the divisions in the evening take place around 7 pm or 7.30 pm.
	The hon. Gentleman will not rememberhe was not a Memberbut Trevor McDonald, or whoever presented News at Ten, used to say, Something is going on in the House of Commons. The Government have a very small majority. The Government of Mr. Major may indeed be defeated this evening. I may be able to tell you before the weather forecast, but probably not. If that is the way to communicate with the electorate, take it away, my friends.
	The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when we had a great many late evening and late night sittings. I can tell him that the quality of response by most Members to the wind-up speeches, and the degree to which those responses were well informed about the issues at stake at 10 o'clock, left a great deal to be desired. He was not here and he does not have that experience, so I must take his evidence as not particularly persuasive.
	I have the same priorities as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. The first is a better parliamentary product, and the second is better interaction with the electorate. We are not a commercial company; we are here as representatives of the people. We are not just having an internal discussion this afternoon; what we do is important for those who send us here. Thirdly, but only thirdly, do I believe that we should be looking at family-friendly or MP-friendly hours. We should really be looking at voter-friendly hours.

Barbara Follett: We should also be looking at the hours that are kept by the people apart from ourselves who work in this House. When the Modernisation Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman serves with me, took evidence from the staff side and from unions, we heard that they were quite adamant that a move back on Tuesday or Wednesday night would be retrograde, and that we should take that into account.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady is quite right; not only would it be retrograde, it would cause huge staffing problems and would be costly.
	As the Leader of the House rightly indicated, there are some rough edges in the present arrangements, as I am the first to acknowledge. We need to address them, and the Modernisation Committee heard evidence of, and recommended solutions to, those problems. The first is obviously the impact on the work of Committees; a lot of the oral and written evidence that we tookthe best evidenceconcerned the impact on the work of Committees.
	Here, the Select Committee has made two crucial suggestions to assist. The first is that Standing Committees should have the same freedom and flexibility as Select Committees to decide precisely when they sit and how they work. In particular, the former need no longer keep up to three hours to have lunch. That is an absurd anachronism. Some Members clearly have an obsession with the precise time at which they feed themselves. The way in which the House operates should make it as

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Paul Tyler: No, I will not give way on that point, for goodness' sake.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Tyler: Alright; I give way to the luncher.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making light of something that is rather serious. It is not just a question of our feeding ourselves, although that is an essential process for everybody on the planet. There is a much more serious point. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out in his submission, lunchtime provides an opportunity to meet constituents and people who have points to make to us. As a Front-Bench spokesman, it provides me with an opportunity to meet people involved with defence. Lunch was an important component, but lunch has been destroyed for three days of the week. If Members want to participate in a debate or hear an important issue being debated in this House, lunch has been completely rubbed out, which substantially impairs our effectiveness in this House.

Paul Tyler: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. When I had a real job outside this House, I used to advise clients that any MP who had time for lunch was not worth talking to. That may put the hon. Gentleman in his proper category.
	We can all meet constituents at any time of the day, over a cup of coffee or tea. I encourage anyone who wants a substantial discussion with me to catch me at the end of the day, after my parliamentary duties are completed in this place. Many of us can do that; I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman, who may get a much better dinner than lunch.
	The important issue is that Committees should be in charge of their own timetable and be able to plan the way in which they operate. The other change for which there is broad support is that we should seek to take away the bunching of Committee work, all-party work and all the groups in this building from Tuesday and Wednesday. We should extend that work more into Thursdays and encourage it more on Mondays.
	The Select Committee's proposal that we bring forward the start time of the main business in the Chamber on Thursday to make it possible for there to be some substantial business, such as Second Reading or Opposition day debates, would mean more whipped business on Thursdays. That will mean more people being here, and more people being prepared, able and willing to take part in all forms of Committee activity. There is wide acceptance of the idea that avoiding the present midweek bulge on Tuesday and Wednesday is crucial to improving the balance of our workload through the parliamentary week. I hope that all hon. Members will support that proposal. I cannot see how any conscientious Member of Parliament could possibly oppose making Thursday a full parliamentary day again, and I hope that we will have support for that.
	As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned, the Committee took much evidence and spent much time trying to find a practical way to take private Members' Bills on Tuesday evenings, after the moment of interruption. There were considerable difficulties and, reluctantly, we came to the conclusion that the way in which private Members' Bills are handled will have to await fuller and deeper consideration. That is not least because there is a trade-off. If the Government give more time for private Members' Billsand I hope that the Government will take them more seriouslyprivate Members may have to reduce the number that have a serious prospect of reaching the statute book. I would be in favour of that trade-off. I came 16th in the ballot one year, and apart from having to appear every Friday to see what might happen, it was simply an opportunity for some contact with the press. If we had only 10 Bills, but all of them serious candidates for the statute book, that would be a good deal to make.
	I hope that in due course the Modernisation Committee will address the whole issue. In the meantime, however, simply to transfer private Members' Bills from Friday to Tuesday evening would be enormously complicated. For example, it would mean that staff would be on parade from early in the morning until very late at night on Tuesday. That would have staffing resource and financial consequences.
	I agree with the Leader of the House about deferring all Divisions after the first on a Thursday. Imagine if we had voted on a reasoned amendment to a Second Reading on a Thursday, but could not vote on the Bill itself. Though it would be attractive to ensure that we could all get away after the first Division on a Thursday evening, it would be absurd to restrict the House by saying that the second and any subsequent Divisions had to be deferred until the following Wednesday. I hope that the House will recognise that. I accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House that he would seek to avoid having a succession of Divisions at 6 pm on a Thursday.
	Before I leave the subject of the Standing Orders, I wish to address Standing Order No. 14(2), and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be able to give me a specific assurance on the issue. It is now wildly out of date. My colleagues and I are very disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the allocation of Opposition days more sensibly. The allocation does not even follow the Standing Order as it is written, and I hope that we will receive an undertaking from the Deputy Leader of the House, or the Leader of the House if he is back in his place, that the matter will be reviewed in the light of the parliamentary arithmetic after the election, in line with all the other allocations. Every Committee is allocated on a proportional basis, according to the strength of the parties in the House, and that too should be reflected in Standing Order No. 14(2).
	I strongly endorse the recommendations of the report from the Modernisation Committee on reconnecting Parliament with the public. We decided in the course of our inquiry that we should place much more emphasis on electronic accessibility. I understand the concerns that were expressed earlier about visiting groups, especially schools. We all like to take schools round this building and to show them a parliamentary democracy at work. However, if students in my constituency happen to come here once in their school lifetime, they are lucky; coming from Cornwall is an expensive business for a low-income area. If they do come, the likelihood that the visit will coincide with a time when they are really interested in what is going on here is limited. It is far more likely that they will want to go online to see what we are doing and to interact with the work of our Standing and Select Committees. Therefore, the emphasis given in the report to online accessibility is the true value-for-money option. In due course, we will no doubt have a wonderful new visitor centre, but that will be many years, and many millions of pounds, hence.

Eric Forth: Ugh!

Paul Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman and I have a common interest in trying to make Parliament more lively for those who are interested in our work, and more accessible, in a way that also makes it more interactive. People need to see what we are doing and feel that their input is appreciated at an appropriate time.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman mentions making the Chamber more lively. Does he agree that this debate should have taken place after the election, when hon. Members who are retiring will not have a vote on matters that will affect all of us in the next Parliament?

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the difficulty is that the new Parliament would not know how to start, because the Standing Orders under which we operate at present are only temporary. We have to have some in place. I also suspect that had incoming MPs been asked to take this decision shortly after getting here, their limited experience might mean that the changes did not receive the measured consideration required. This is the right moment to take this decision.
	I endorse the sensible transitional arrangements to take account of existing contractual and other commitments in relation to the car mileage allowance, which includes an element for the purchase of a vehicle, not just its running coststhat is the difference with the private sector.
	We will have a free vote, like all the other parties, and I am sure that the majority of my colleagues will be in favour of making this place more relevant to our electorate and ensuring that we communicate better with them. Above all, I hope that we will all agree that the purpose of this afternoon's decisions is not to make our working conditions more convenient for us, but to make our work more relevant, more effective and more productive for those whom we serve.

Robin Cook: I congratulate the Modernisation Committee and the Leader of the House on their proposals on connecting with the public. I strongly believe that the biggest challenge that we face is the large and growing number of the public who do not feel ownership of the political process and are dropping out of participation in it. Over the next three or four months, all of us will spend much of our time working hard to try to ensure that as many people as possible vote for our parties. That is a proper and legitimate concern of party politicians, but we should also find a modicum of time to reflect on the other major test of the forthcoming election, which will be how many people vote at all. Anything that we can do to improve education, information and knowledge about what Parliament does and how it works has to be welcome and I therefore commend the useful and valuable proposals of the Modernisation Committee.
	As the guilty party who introduced the modernisation package, I always regarded the proposals on hours as being among its less important items. Some of our other proposals have made the House more effective and were therefore accepted as consensual. I do not think that anybody would wish to go back to the previous requirement of a fortnight's notice for oral questions, for instance. Question Time is now that bit more topical and up to date. There was a bit of a battle to reach an agreement to circulate the text of statements in the Chamber the moment the Minister sat down, but I think that all Members welcome that innovation. It has helped the exchanges that follow and the scrutiny of the Minister over the statement.
	I am a realistic politician and I understand that what makes debate is not what is important, but what is controversial. The changes on the hours have certainly been controversial. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) that there is no consensus on the matter. All I can suggest is that, as we have strongly divided views on the matter, we should proceed with respect for each other's views.
	I deprecate those who have suggested that those who want the new hours do not have an appetite for the job. I have proved my enthusiasm for long hours. I was here in the 1974 Parliament whenat least every second week, if not more oftenwe would have an all-night sitting.
	I was young in those days and it may surprise the House to hear that I was opinionated. I took a perverse pride in working those long hours and sitting up all night building socialism. I imagined that my electors back home admired what I was doing. With the wisdom of maturity, I can understand that they thought that I was daft to work those hours. Of course, they were right: it was no way to carry through proper business.
	One or two people have referred to the question of shorter hours, but the change did not shorten the hours of the House. Before I examine that, I would say in parenthesis that I am not entirely sure that we are wise to equate length of sitting hours with quality of scrutiny. This Chamber sits much more often than nearly any other Parliament in the world. For every two days that continental Parliaments sit, we sit for three, and it is not immediately evident that the quality of our legislation is that much better as a result.
	Nevertheless, the fact is that the changes in our hours have not reduced the debating time in the Chamber. In the first year after the change, the amount of debating time rose by 30 hours, and in the second year it rose by 60 hours, in part because of the earlier finishing time at 7 pm.
	The shadow Leader of the House said that that was a firm cut-off time, but it is not. What we are debating is the curious notion of what is called, in parliamentary jargon, the moment of interruption. It has always been possible for business to continue after the moment of interruption, and that used to be routine. However, carrying on a debate after the moment of interruption if that comes at 10 pm makes it certain that the House will sit until midnight. I gently counsel those who want to revert to that practice, and the hours that we used to have, that we will find that we have reduced and not increased the sitting hours of the House because Ministers and Whips will not wish to continue until midnight.
	I have been tremendously impressed to hear in this debate about the frustration experienced by colleagues who serve on Committees. They have said that they wished that Committees did not sit at the same time as the Chamber because they want to be able to attend debates here. They long for a return to the hours when the Chamber sat in the evening so that they could spend happy evenings sitting here.
	I love this place, but it is important that we are honest about it. When I was a junior Back Bencher in the 1970s, I was invariably called to speak between 7 pm and 9 pm, when other hon. Members had dinner. I was therefore able to make my speeches in near-total privacy. The idea that changing the finishing time back to 10 pm will allow excited debate with full Benches is not one that I recognise from my experience.
	The reality is that hon. Members are asked to do an impossible job. Most of us work at least 60 hours a week, if not more but, however long we work, we cannot do all that we are expected to do. We are all familiar with the problem of having to juggle with being in at least two places at the same time, and that will be the case whatever hours we adopt for the Chamber. However, I am encouraged by the fact that Select Committees had 300 more sittings last year than was the case three years ago. That suggests to me that, at the very least, the difficulties and problems that we face are not insuperable.
	I make one plea in respect of this debate. I am distressed that it focuses on the question of whether we should sit into the late evening. For me, the debate has always been about why we should not sit in the morning. That is the crucial issue. I am all in favour of this House exercising proper scrutiny of the Government, but the whole point is to do so when people outside are listening and noticing.
	A very important statement was made earlier today. It has led on all the lunchtime news bulletins and it will dominate the media agenda for the rest of the day. Under the previous hours, that statement would not have been made until the middle of the afternoon, long after the lunchtime bulletins had finished. There would not have been time for the newspapers to analyse it properly the next day.
	Decisions of this House are much better reported the next day if they are taken at 7 pm rather than 10 pm. I had the opportunity to see that at first hand when I was still Leader of the House. Shortly after we changed the hours, we had the debacle over the amendments proposing a change in the composition of the House of Lords.
	I was the Minister in charge of those proceedings and the House will remember that we failed to agree to a single proposal or option on offer. We had the relevant votes comparatively early in the evening, which enabled every newspaper to carry an editorial the next day saying what a cod we had made of the matter.
	As a Minister, I should probably have preferred the vote to have taken place at 2 am, so that no one noticed the result but, as a parliamentarian, I had to welcome the fact that the public knew about what had happened and had time to comment on it and analyse it. When we voted on tuition fees at 7 pm, for the first time ever, more people watched the parliamentary channel than either Sky television or BBC News 24. That has to be the ultimate test of whether we are connecting with the public.
	I want to end with one final thought. I fully agree with some colleagues who saythe right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has said it oftenthat what we say and do is far more important than when we say and do it. However, there is no law that says that the quality of our speeches improves the later in the day that we make them.
	Those hon. Members who entered the House by St. Stephen's entrance will have passed Fox, Burke and Pitt frozen for all time in attitudes of declamation against each other. Their great debates on human rights, the French revolution and Britain's place in Europe all took place in the morning and in the afternoon. None of them complained that scrutiny of those issues would have been better had it carried on until 10 pm.
	As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out, the House sat into the evening only after the introduction of gas lighting in the 19th century. It sat in the afternoon and evening precisely so hon. Members could earn their living at the Bar or in the City.
	We are all professionals now and quite well paid. We should adopt hours that reflect that professional status and our full-time commitment to the job. That might put us a little more in touch with the modern world in which our constituents live and work.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). He was a distinguished Leader of the House, which he led with and by example. In addition, he chaired the Modernisation Committee exceedingly well. I was delighted to work with him then, as I am delighted to work with the current Leader of the House.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston referred to parliamentary questions. The change in our practices in that respect was the initiative of the Procedure Committee rather than the Modernisation Committee. I hope that he will accept that modest correction to what was otherwise a splendid speech. He and I are both parliamentarians, although the conclusion that I reached is slightly different from his. In my short speech, I hope to explain my reasoning.
	Hon. Members will know that I have the honour to chair the Procedure Committee, which circulated a questionnaire about sitting hours last January. We published the results in our second report last March. In paragraph 13 of that report, we made some points for the Modernisation Committee and the House to take into account. I shall go through some of them briefly this afternoon.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) stated earlier, the questionnaire found a slight overall preference for a reversion to the old hours on Tuesdays. I am glad that the Government have tabled amendments to allow the House to decide on that, and I pay tribute to them for doing so.
	I have had many discussions with hon. Members who take very different positions on these matters and I know that many are not in favour of taking what they consider a backward step. However, some of the arguments that I have read in the past few days are, to say the least, a little exaggerated. I have also read editorials and articles in newspapers such as the Evening Standard and others, written by people whose knowledge of this place I expected to be greater. They have made statements that are very far from the truth. Those of us who want a modest change back to the old hours, particularly on a Tuesday, are not trying to work lesswe are actually trying to work longer and to do a better job. The question is how time is allocated. That said, I respect the sincerity of the case put by the Leader of the House.
	Reverting to the old times on a Tuesday would not mean voting, as some have said, into the small hours. The moment of interruptionthat technical phrase to which the right hon. Member for Livingston referredwould be 10 o'clock, so it would not mean going back to Victorian timings, which were bound to be unsuitable anyway. In fact, as historical statistics show, the moment of interruption was midnight from 1888, when it was introduced, to 1906 and it was not changed to 10 o'clock, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, until 1946. If the old Tuesday hours are so unacceptable, I have to ask the rhetorical question why there is no pressure to change the Monday hours as well. [Interruption.] Well, I do not think that there is.
	I shall support amendments (a) to (l), which would enable us to revert to the old Tuesday hours. Members who want to go back to the old hours on Wednesdays as well can achieve that by voting against the entire motion. I should point out to the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House that I shall be voting merely to restore the old Tuesday hours. I shall not try to restore the old hours on Wednesdays. I shall also vote for bringing forward the start of business on a Thursday to 10.30 am.
	The Procedure Committee pointed out that Standing and Select Committee sittings have to be taken into consideration, as well as the sittings of this House. I am glad that the Modernisation Committee paid considerable attention to that issue. The proposed earlier start on Thursdayswhich would restore Thursday sittings to the same length as those on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdayswould of course result in very short sittings of Committees in the morning and, presumably, correspondingly longer ones in the afternoon. Despite that, it is important that we ensure that Thursday is a full day, so I shall support that proposition.
	A number of colleagues still seem to think that we can run the House of Commons as if it were an ordinary commercial office, with us all arriving at, say, 9 o'clock and leaving at 5 o'clock. The Procedure Committee pointed out that we all work in at least two placesour constituencies and hereand we might even claim to have duties overseas as well. For many Members, the House and their constituency are many hundreds of miles apart. We surely need, therefore, to choose hours that will work for us as Members of Parliament, rather than just copying those in use elsewhere. In any event, nine-to-five jobs are perhaps becoming less commonplace.
	The Procedure Committee recommended that decisions should be made in full knowledge of the effects on staff of the House and their working patterns. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) raised that issue in an intervention and it certainly was important that, this time, we consider the impact on staff. The report that gave rise to our current sittings did not really do that. I am delighted that we have put that right, and that the Modernisation Committee took the hintI thinkfrom the Procedure Committee. Indeed, there is detailed evidence to justify this recommendation.
	It is important to realise that those of us who are deeply committed to and involved in this House do a tremendous amount of work here during the weekbe it as members of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen, as Chairmen of Westminster Hall, as members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union or as members of other Committees of the House, including the all-party groups. Such work does seem to be rather heavily concentrated on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the House needs to take that into account. Perhaps the Government will win the day and the House will decide to stick with the current hours, but I hope that this issue will be kept under review. It is important that Committee work, which in my view is as important as what goes on in this Chamber, is in no way prejudiced and disadvantaged. I want us to get rid of some of the bunching of Standing and Select Committee sittings.
	In my viewit is shared by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who chairs the Liaison Committee with great distinctionI see a time when the Modernisation Committee might be terminated and I hope that the Leader of the House will give some attention to this issue. What remains of modernisationif there is any modernisation to do in futuremight be assumed by the Procedure Committee. There is some danger in a Committee that dictates how this House deals with its business being chaired by a Cabinet Minister. It would be perceived as much fairer and more democratic if it were chaired, as other Select Committees are, by an experienced Back Bencher.
	I am obviously very happy with Connecting Parliament with the Public. This Friday, I shall attend the Cheshire UK Youth Parliament election day at Chester county hall. It is important that we educate young people and seek to make them more interested in what goes on in this House.
	The Leader of the House has acted very responsibly in tabling the car mileage allowance motion. It does not change the decision that was taken in the latter half of last year, but it makes the situation much fairer. It treats those who represent very large constituencies with much more justice, and I hope that it will be passed.
	I commend the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on tabling these motions. I hope that Members will vote on them entirely freely and exercise their right as Members of Parliament to judge the work that we seek to do, which is to work hard and, if necessary, long in the interests of our constituents.

Anne Campbell: I was among those who suggested to the Leader of the House some months ago that this debate should be postponed. I did so partly because many of the Members who decide on this issue today will not be in a position to experience any changes that are made. I understand why such a postponement has not been possible, but as a result, this debate is likely to continue, regardless of the decision reached today. New Members entering the House may want to debate this issue again; indeed, I doubt whether it will ever be possible to decide that it will never again be debated.
	I am one of the Members of this House who are fortunate enough to represent a constituency within travelling distance of the House. That does not enable me, however, to get home in time to attend evening meetings, but last night I was able to go home in order to attend a job fair that was held in my constituency today. It was an interesting fair, which was attended by a number of employers. I took the opportunity to talk to them about what they were doing, and several asked me about today's business of the House. I told them what we would be debating and the issues. Every single one of them was horrified at the thought that we might revert to the old sitting hours on a Tuesday; not one could understand the reasoning behind such a change.
	I ask Members to think about the effect of any decision taken today on opinion in the outside world. We shall look extremely foolish if, having adopted what I think of as normal business hours, we reverse that decision after only two years and go backit would be going backto a dark age. Most people simply would not understand that decision.
	I would like to come back to whole question of how we can make Parliament more efficient and businesslike. One reason why the Government have spent a good deal of time debating family-friendly issues or the work-life balancewhatever one wants to call themis the large amount of stress that people experience in the workplace. I do not think that hon. Members are different from people who work in business. We have found that people who are able to make some choice about their working hours and are thus able to be flexible, to have a good relationship with their families and to arrange their domestic affairs as they would wish suffer from less stress than those who are fixed to rigid hours and have less contact with their families. That is important for us, because if we put ourselves in less stressful situations, we make better decisions. We are also then better able to debate and analyse matters, and to represent our constituents.

Jon Owen Jones: I think that I am one of the few people to speak in the debate with a young family, so I suffer from such stress. As has been said before, what is family friendly for those who live in London is not family friendly for those who live a long way from London.
	If we were to move towards a situation in which we had very family-friendly hours for those who live in Londonmore so than they are nowit could make the House more representative in one way, but it would become less representative geographically. Such very family-friendly hours would make it more likely that Members with families would locate to and live in London, whatever constituency they represented.

Anne Campbell: I do not think that there is conflict between family-friendly hours in the House for Members who live in London and those who live away from London. A main driver for Members who live away from London must be starting late on a Monday so that they can travel here easily on a Monday morning, and finishing early on a Thursday afternoon so that they can get back to their constituencies on a Thursday evening. The Modernisation Committee's proposals achieve exactly that. They give us an optimum time period in which we can satisfy the needs of both Members who live outside London and those who live in London. There is not necessarily a conflict between the two.

Bill Wiggin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Campbell: I shall continue for a moment, although I might take an intervention later.
	We now know about the use of the telephone by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the modern technology that he has perhaps espoused for some time, although I am not sure. I, too, use the telephone to contact my constituents, but I find that they are much more likely to be available in the evening than during the day. That means that there is an argument for Members being free in the evening so that they can use that time to contact constituents, rather than attending debates in the Chamber or Select Committee sittings.
	I turn to the matter of reconnecting people with Parliament. The all-party group on parliamentary reform, which I chair, recently sent out a notice to hon. Members about a meeting that we are holding in March. We are asking them to invite two young people from their constituencies to come to Westminster one day in Marchon 2 March, I thinkto debate with hon. Members the Modernisation Committee's proposals in Connecting Parliament with the Public. The event will be important, so I hope that hon. Members will take advantage of it. It presents an opportunity to get young people here so that they can see how Parliament operates and engage in real debate. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has agreed to participate in the event, because his presence will allow young people to feel that it is as important as it is.
	I hope that we will decide to keep the current hours. Two years is a short time in which to arrive at a definitive decision on whether to return to the old hours, so I hope that hon. Members will vote to keep the new hours on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and to adopt the earlier hour on Thursdays.

Eric Forth: I have been worried right from the start of this so-called modernisation process that it only ever seems to move the relationship between the House and the Government in one direction, which can be summed up by the word convenience. Everything that the Modernisation Committee has asked us to do can easily and readily be seen as convenient for Members and, even more importantly, for the Government. That has radically, and perhaps irrevocably, altered the relationship between the Government and the House of Commons. I regret that, because it is bad constitutionally and bad for Parliament. Although I would like the situation to be reversed, I do not know whether that will happen.

Paul Tyler: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) argued that the change back to the old hours on Tuesdays should be made because the new arrangements are inconvenient to colleagues? He is directly contradicting the case made from his Front Benchnot for the first time.

Eric Forth: I feel very comfortable in that position and I am not deterred in the slightest.
	Let us consider public perceptions of what we do here. I think that we are saying to the public, We want what is convenient to us, because some of us found it rather unacceptable to be working into the evenings and we really want to go off to the cinema in the evenings rather than doing our parliamentary work. Given that and the fact that the Government have such tight control over the guillotining of Committees and the work that we domany debates and votes on such things as money and Ways and Means resolutions that were held before have been entirely eliminatedwe are being taken in only one direction. The motion represents yet another such movement. It might not be especially important in itself, but it is part of a general move that Members themselves have made to say, We do not want to be inconvenienced; we want to do what is comfortable. Of course the Government benefit from that, which is a negative factor.
	It is ironic to compare what we do and how we do it with the situation in the House of Lords. It is now true to say that their lordships meet more often and sit longer than us, and it is generally accepted that the quality of their scrutiny of legislation and work to hold the Government to account is far superior to anything that we do here.

Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. We elected Members have a duty to our constituents, and a great deal of time has to be devoted to that. So there is no comparison with the amount of time that can be spent in the Chambers.

Eric Forth: Of course that is true. However, I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that, as elected Members, our primary duty is here in the House. In the hon. Lady's case, she is here to support the Government but hold them to accountin my case, I am here to oppose the Government and hold them to accountand to legislate. What we do for our constituents we do in our different ways, and that is right and proper. For the hon. Lady to suggest that her constituents, in some mysterious way, should come before her work at Westminster strikes me as a rather odd interpretation of her duties. I would not accept that as a conclusion.
	If we accept the propositionI hope that most Members will do sothat their lordships now do more valuable parliamentary work than we do, that must, at least in some way, be because the Government have less control over what happens in the House of Lords and because their lordships sit during the hours that they believe are appropriate for doing their job as parliamentarians.

Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essential difference when it comes to the scrutiny of legislation is that in the House of Lords there are no timetables and no guillotines, whereas in this place a guillotine is uniformly imposedfor example, on Monday, when we considered the Gambling Bill, the Government provided four and a half hours on the Floor of the House.

Eric Forth: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. If he wanted to, he could tempt me into saying that perhaps we would do a better job if, as in the good old days, every Bill were considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. That would have the valuable effect of slowing down the progress of legislation, which I am sure we would all consider to be highly beneficial.
	The problem with the Parliament-office block analysis that we are being offered more and more by the so-called modernisers is the implication that underlies it, which is that we are here to process legislation as quickly and conveniently as possible. For a legislating Government, that is manna from heaven, but it does not make parliamentary sense.
	I admire colleagues who tell me that their constituents are hanging on our every word and gazing laser-like upon what we do in this place. Admire my constituents as I do, few of them spend much time talking to me about the hours that the House of Commons works, or the way in which it is structured. They prefer to trust me and to leave that to me, and they are right to do so.
	If we are talking about perceptions, we must be careful about the analysis. That leads me to say a few words about nonsensical motion 3, under the heading Connecting Parliament with the Public. It contains a lot of vacuous and gratuitous nonsense. It is self-serving, self-delusional and rather sad. At the very same time that many Members have complained that because of the changes we have made, which we are now discussing, our constituents have fewer opportunities to come to the House, we produce nonsense about parliamentary roadshows, which would involve some nonsensical bus puffing out what we do to a hapless public, as if that would make them any more impressed with what we do.
	I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether he thought that the much-vaunted euro roadshow, on which huge amounts of public money were spent a short time ago, would be an exemplar for what the parliamentary roadshow will do. He was unable to give an answer. We know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is another boondoggle, another piece of nonsense and something that will cost a lot of money and have no effect.
	The same ridiculous motion continues,
	authorises the House of Commons Commission to fund the publication and distribution of a new voters' guide.
	That would involve more money, more nonsense and more material going through letterboxes that would hardly ever be read.
	If we want to be serious about a new voters' guide, I would want it to be linked backthis is something that the House will hardly ever hear me say but I will say it this once; it is a novelty and I offer it for what it is worthto the website so that young people who come to our website could access the guide without it being printed, distributed and put through letterboxes, only to be put in waste bins throughout the land. The proactivity that is mentioned in the next ridiculous line of this absurd motion would not be by us at taxpayers' expense but by the voters or the young people, if they wanted to access information about us and what we do. Why do we not turn the proposal on its head and save the hapless taxpayer some money, so he or she is not asked to spend money on a guide that they will almost certainly never read?
	I hope that I will have an opportunity to vote against the motion. It rather pathetically exemplifies how we look through the wrong end of the telescope when we engage in this sort of exercise over and again. We talk at great length about the hours that we work and the perceptions that people have. We regret that the public take less and less interest in what we do, and then we wonder why that may be.
	I would offer as a simple solution the fact that what we say is often desperately boring and uninteresting. What we do in the Chamber is often so consensual these days that people cannot tell the difference between any of us. As for whether they should turn up for the next election to vote, I suspect that that will be determined by people's perceptions of whether what we are offering is of relevance to them, whether they have a real choice and whether they think that the outcome of the next election is so obvious and pre-determined that their turning out will make no difference.
	Those are entirely different matters from the hours that we work or people thinking that if we work late into the night we are all slightly potty and not worth voting for. My analysis would be completely at odds with what we have been offered up to now. I shall vote for a restoration of the Tuesday hours, which would be a small step in signalling that the House wishes to take more seriously its responsibilities vis--vis the Government. I expect no more than that.
	I will not vote, sadly, for the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), because it, too, suggests that we believe that the proceedings of the House should be compromised, in this case, so that people can catch their train or aeroplane to go home, which is utterly the wrong message to give. We should tell people that we are prepared to work in Parliament as long as necessary to do our job properly. If that causes us the odd inconvenience, we should be prepared to accept it.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to speak in support of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations, and against the amendment that would restore late-night sittings on a Tuesday.
	The new hours have been a great improvement. The Leader of the House said that activity has increased and that the House has sat longer, as have Select Committees. I believe that the work of those Committees is a vital part of the work of the House. It is not desirable to conduct business late at night, and a move backwards would create a bad impression among the public, as Members have already said. Many Members have said that the issue is of no interest to their constituents, but people in my constituency are concerned about the way in which the House conducts its business, and have asked me whether the House is still sitting long hours. Whatever the reasons for reversing the decision on Tuesday hours, the public would view it as a return to the jolly hours in the Smoking Room, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said.
	We should make greater attempts to make contact with the public and encourage people to stand for public office. That important issue is relevant to our debate. We have not debated at great length the fact that many groups are under-represented in Parliament, particularly women, who make up over 50 per cent. of the population but only 18 per cent. of the House of Commons. One reason for that discrepancy is that women have not been attracted to a place with awkward sitting hours that has the reputation of being a men's club. All constituency parties, of whatever political persuasion, have been reluctant to select women, because they caricature Members of Parliament as middle-aged men in grey suits. The clubby portrayal of life in Westminster makes them think that they should select male candidates, so our reputation plays into the unconscious sexism of many constituency parties. Restoring late-night Tuesday sittings would be a big setback to efforts to attract a more representative group of parliamentarians.
	The newer institutions that we have set up have reasonable sitting hours, and have much more representative Members. The Welsh Assembly, for example, has 50 per cent. men and 50 per cent. women, and women account for more than 40 per cent. of Members in the Scottish Parliament. Reasonable sitting hours and good gender-balanced representation go together, and more normal hours would bring a more representative group of MPs. The current sitting hours were introduced for a limited period, but many candidates who hope to be selected as MPs at the election expect to serve in a House with reasonable sitting hours. In Wales, we are likely to have five extra women MPs, and those candidates put themselves forward in the expectation of working reasonable hours. There is a bigger issue herewe are not just changing the hours of the House. We are discussing what sort of Parliament we want.

Robert Smith: Has the hon. Lady alerted those candidates to the fact that the kind of Parliament very much depends on the electorate's decision as to the balance between parties? In a Parliament like the present one, where there is a large majority, life is not so difficult for Back Benchers, but a Parliament with no overall majority or a very tight majority will involve Members in much more work in this place, whatever the hours.

Julie Morgan: The candidates are aware of that.
	It is important to consider what sort of Parliament we want. Do we want a modern democracy that is seen to be trying to connect with the people, or do we want what the public see as an historic club, inward and backward-looking? That is what the public will think we are deciding today. I accept that that is not the reason for all hon. Members' decision, but that is the impression that the public will gain. We want Parliament to be seen as taking everybody's views into account. We want Members to be representative of all sections of society. We must therefore have the sort of Parliament that seems to be in touch with people's everyday lives.
	Others have pointed out that people in some professions and some jobs have to work long hours and in the evenings, but we do not have to do that here. We are not working less. We are moving the hours forward in the day. We are working longer, as the Leader of the House said.

Bill Wiggin: Can the hon. Lady think of any reason why a Select Committee whose members want to sit late on a Tuesday night should not do so?

Julie Morgan: I am sorry, I do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Bill Wiggin: The answer is no, there is no reason why members of Select Committees who want to sit late on a Tuesday night should not do so. That rather plays to the hon. Lady's argument, and I was hoping she might agree with me.

Julie Morgan: I certainly think that there is a case for using Tuesday evenings for other activities. If that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, I agree with him. We want to make this place appealing to the public. Our decisions tonight will affect the way in which the public see Parliament.

Peter Hain: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to Select Committees to choose to sit whenever they want to sit, including on Tuesday or Wednesday evenings? It is up to Standing Committees to choose, within the rules, to sit later on Tuesday evenings, if Members feel they must occupy their time in that way.

Julie Morgan: I agree that it is possible for all those bodies to choose when they want to sit.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Lady has been generous in taking interventions. What she has described is her perception of how the world should be. However, there are many of us who think it is not important how we see who should be here and what they should be doing. What matters is how our constituents see it. It is they who will make the choice. I have never had anyone say anything about the hours that we sit, other than an occasional comment. The substance of who comes here and what they represent is determined not by us, but by our constituents.

Julie Morgan: I agree. The public determine who comes here, but the hon. Gentleman must surely accept that the public's perception of what happens here influences how they choose candidates and sometimes how they vote. The debate is much wider than whether or not we move our hours forward.
	I hope that the House will not vote to reverse the sitting hours on a Tuesday. I congratulate the Modernisation Committee on its report and give it my wholehearted support.

Patrick Cormack: We have heard a lot of talk about connecting Parliament with the people. Parliament connects with the people in a variety of ways, including the quality of individual representation provided by Members of Parliament, which includes welcoming constituents to this House, showing them how it works and taking them roundsomething that has become well nigh impossible since we changed our hours.
	The connection also depends on the quality of press and media reporting of this place. One of the scandals of modern times is the way in which the Chamber is ignored by all but the sketch writers and those who occasionally report speeches by Front Benchers. I remember the day when all the quality papers, and some of the others too, in effect carried a prcis of Hansard. People knew what was said here, which connected them with Parliament. The papers are awash with political news and speculation, but very little of that is direct reporting of Parliament. I say that to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is no longer present and who made much of the fact that the new hours are more media friendly.
	When I entered this House in 1970, the hours and the place were very different. When we considered the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act 1971, which was introduced by the Conservative Government, we sat through the night on many occasions. I am not arguing that that improved the quality of the legislation, but it gave the Opposition an opportunity to hold us to account in a way in which no guillotine motion ever does these days. I would not necessary return to open-ended hours, although I remember a certain firebrand, the right hon. Member for Livingston, coming here in 1974. I was told, You must watch that young man. He's going to do marvellous things in Parliament. In many ways, he has done marvellous things in Parliament, and I am sorry that he is not here now to hear the compliment.
	After a two-year experimental period, we are deciding how we can best do our jobs. Every Member of Parliamentthose who are here and those who are notbrings different qualities and attributes to this most peculiar of jobs. It is not really a job; it is a way of life, and we all approach it slightly differently. The longer Members are in the House, the more they become involved with a range of issues, some of which touch on foreign affairsfor instance, I have done a fair amount for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Some hon. Members are involved in all-party groups, and I have chaired the largest of those, the all-party arts and heritage group, for many years. All those commitments involve keeping in touch with people outside the House.
	Hon. Members must also deal with their constituency commitments and correspondence. I rarely receive fewer than 30 letters a day and frequently receive many more than that. I have always been one of those Members who is in their office very early in the morning, and Monday is the only morning of the week that I can spend wholeheartedly working on my parliamentary and constituency duties without neglecting this Chamber. Much to my wife's anger and chagrin, I invariably come to London on a Sunday, so that I can be in my office by half-past 7 on a Monday morning to work. The new hours have made it impossible for me to maintain the same connection and service with the individuals and bodies outside this House with which and with whom I am connected. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would shut up for a moment.
	It is sad that the camaraderie that existed in this place for evening after evening in the Smoking Room and the Dining Room is a thing of the past. I frequently dine in the House on Tuesday or Wednesday, but rarely more than a handful of hon. Members are present to exchange views, discuss the issues of the day and talk about the problems and conflicts with which we are all involved. We are not here for our personal convenience, but as public servants to do a job for our constituents by representing them here at Westminster and playing a full part in helping to hold the Government of the day to account.
	I believe that the combination of the change of hours and the imposition of the automatic guillotine on every Bill has emasculated this place. That is extremely dangerous, especially when we have a Government with an overwhelming majority, as we do at the momentalthough I trust that we will put that right at the next general election by electing a Government, albeit with a smaller majority, comprising Members from this side of the House.
	Unless we have a degree of flexibility in hours that is not allowed for in the motion, we will not fulfil the full role of an adult Parliament. I have tabled an amendment about Thursdays. I did so not because I wish to truncate business on Thursdays but because I do not want to see another morning eaten into and further bunching and clashing as regards Committees. My ideal solutionalthough I am happy to accept the compromise that is before us today in a spirit of conciliationwould be to go back to the normal hours on Wednesdays and Thursdays, although I realise that that is unlikely to earn the approbation of the House. On Thursdays, it would be a very small concession to sit from 11.30 am until 7 pm; we could then have a full day's business, which the Leader of the House was anxious to commend to us.
	Whatever Members think about the Thursday amendment, I very much hope that those on both sides of the House will carefully consider a reversion to Tuesday hours. That is not to suggest going back to the dark ages and sitting beyond 10 o'clock. I am not one for all-night sittings, as I said, although I like to have a more open-ended timetable. It is a very modest proposal, and I was glad that it received the enthusiastic support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), because it goes nowhere near as far as he would ideally like to go. However, it would restore something of the spirit and atmosphere of Parliament as those of us who have been here a long time know it and love it, give Members more opportunity to do things in the morning in response to the many demands that are made on their time, and restore a breath of sanity to our proceedings that has gone over the past two years.
	I entirely accept the good faith of the Leader of the House, who of course sees things from a different perspective. When one sits on the Government side of the House, it is inevitable that one's prime interest, particularly if one is a Minister or a Cabinet Minister, is to get the business of the Government whom one serves through the House. When the right hon. Gentleman sits on this side of the House again, his perspective will change, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst changed from a remarkably fierce gamekeeper into a wonderfully free-ranging poacher after 1997.
	This is an opportunity for us to make a modest change before the general election so that those who are elected here on 5 May, or whenever it is, will have a timetable that has been agreed by those who have experienced both situations. Every Member of this House was elected knowing what the hours were, but they were not what they are now. I know that it is hotly contested and the Division will be keenly fought, but I hope that we will at least make this modest bit of progress so that when Members are elected in May, or whenever, they will be able to judge for themselves. I warmly commend the amendment that the Deputy Leader of the House tabled but, sadly, will not vote for.

Joan Ruddock: I speak as a member of the Modernisation Committee, and although I want to concentrate on the sitting hours, I commend to hon. Members the motion on connecting the public with Parliament.
	The debate is nominally about the hours that we work, and of course we all have a personal preference. However, it is also about the culture of this place, outside perceptions of this place and, most importantly, how well Parliament does its work of holding the Government to account and communicating with our electorate.
	Let me deal with the culture first. When we changed the hours two years ago, a majority of those of us who had been Members of Parliament for more than 10 years voted to retain the old hours. A majority of those who had become Members of Parliament in the past 10 years voted for the earlier starts and finishes, as I did. However, as one of those who was elected more than 10 years ago, let me tell it like it was.
	In my first year, we sat for 218 days. On 166 of them76 per cent.the House sat between 10 pm and 2 am. On 26 days the House sat after 2 am. Those were the good old days of the thriving parliamentary culture that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) remembers so fondly. For me, a woman who had worked all her working life for long hours in pressured jobs, it was none the less a huge culture shock to come to this place.
	Although I was used to working long hours, I was not used to dining for long hours or to going from dining to the Strangers Bar or the Tea Room or the Smoking Room. Of course, it was an age of extraordinary, and occasionally great, oratory in the House, but part of the long-hours culture was built around one that was already disappearing from everyday life. As The Times reported:
	When there were votes at 10 pm, the bars and restaurants teemed with MPs gossiping and plotting.
	The Strangers Bar was the heart of that culture and, as Chris Moncrieff reported in the same article, the Strangers
	used to get very rowdy I've seen fisticuffs in there.
	I never saw a fight, but I recall seeing more than one hon. Member swaying on his feet as he addressed the Chamber.
	Was that a Parliament of which we could all be proud? Was it a Parliament of people who were in step with their constituents? Was it a Parliament dedicated to holding the Government to account? Not in my judgment. I do not suggest, and I know that others have not suggested, that those who want to revert to late hours on Tuesday wish to return to that boozy old boys' culture, but we need to recognise it for what it was and acknowledge that, progressively, as new people have come into this place, there has been a change in the culture that predated the change in the hours.
	People spend less time in the Chamber because they are in Westminster Hall, on Select Committees or dealing with their constituents, who make increasingly onerous demands on all of us. The experimental new hours have been difficult for some people because they have required change in working hours and all change is difficult. However, as the Modernisation Committee acknowledged, those of us who pressed for change have listened to people's complaints, looked at the whole week and made proposals accordingly.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) asked why nobody proposed moving to early hours on Mondays. There is a good reason for that. We recognise that people must have time to travel on Monday from their constituencies and it is therefore logical to have a late night on a Monday. The same logic cannot and does not apply to any other day of the week.

Gerald Howarth: Many Labour Members who support the hon. Lady's argument have tried to draw parallels between us and the commercial world. She will be familiar with many people, perhaps friends, who live a long way from London but work there and who, to fulfil their duties, do not take up Monday morning in travelling to their office. They travel to London on a Sunday night.

Joan Ruddock: I could not agree more. However, early Mondays are not proposed because it is acknowledged that because of the stress of the job and the fact that all Members of Parliament have to undertake constituency engagements at weekends

Eric Forth: Stress?

Joan Ruddock: Perhaps with the exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it is reasonable that people should spend time in their constituencies and with their families on Saturday and Sunday. Travelling on a Monday is logical and appropriate for the good workings of this place and for some balance in one's private life. But there is no argument for returning to a late night on a Tuesday for those reasons.
	People have said that they have difficulty coping with all that they have to do on a Tuesday morning, and the Modernisation Committee agrees that there has been a bunching of activities on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. However, the solution to that is in our own hands and available to us today. It is to move to a slightly earlier starting time on Thursdays, so that we have a proper day with the five-hour space that we need for a Second Reading debate. More change, not less, is required to make the House a functioning institution in which we can be effective in our jobs.
	People have said that Select Committees keep being interrupted by Divisions in the House. However, the Committees often chose to work at times at which they would be interrupted in that way. This is not a new phenomenon. If Chairs and members of Select Committees do not wish to have those interruptions, they can sit in the mornings. Wednesday morning in particular has been made available to enable Select Committees to sit at that time. I sit on two Select Committees. I know how much work we do, and I know that we have been effective in holding the Government to account. I also know that the Select Committees as a whole have produced more reports under the new hours than under the old ones.
	The solution is in our hands. The working week under the new hours has not proved to be a full four-day week, and that has brought this place into disrepute. The former Prime Minister, John Major, said of MPs:
	A lot don't come in Monday, are around on Tuesday and go home Wednesday afternoon.
	That is unacceptable. We need to put it right, and we can do so. We can work a proper four-day week in reasonable hours.
	The shadow Leader of the House talked about the psychologist's report and the stress that MPs have experienced under the new hours. I recall that, with the old hours that I have described, seven of our Members died in office. I cannot make a causal connection between those hours and those deaths, but I suggest to the hon. GentlemanI am sorry that he is not in his placethat he cannot make the causal connection to which he referred either.
	As we have all said, we need to communicate the work that we do here via the media. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that enabling the media to digest the votes properly, to hear the debates and to communicate them to our constituents at a time when they are not in their beds, is an important aspect of the modernisation that we have enjoyed.
	I want to make a brief comment on what a return to a 10 pm finish on Tuesdays would mean. In the past two years, when business and votes have been required beyond the cut-off time of 7 pm, this has resulted in our being able to leave at about 8.30 in the evening. A return to late nights on a Tuesday would end all that.

Paul Farrelly: Perhaps we should be drawing not only commercial parallels but international parallels in this debate. I am not opposing late night sittings on Mondays, for the very sensible reasons that my hon. Friend has given. However, not a single legislature on the list that I have here sits until 10 pm even on one night, let alone two, three or four. That list includes the legislatures of France, Germany, Japan, Canada and New Zealand. Yet we still manage to sit for more hours than any of them, and on more days.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an extremely telling point.
	Let me return to what late night sittings on Tuesdays would mean. In the year before we moved to the new hours, the House sat on 201 days. On 78 of those days it sat beyond 10.30 pm. Sometimes it was closer to midnight; very occasionally it was after midnight. That is what people will be voting for today if they vote for a return to the old hours on a Tuesday[Interruption.] That is a fact. If hon. Members vote for a return to such hours, that will be up to all of us. However, I ask Members of the House to think about all the hundreds of people who support us in a huge variety of ways in the service of the House of Commons. Those people do not want to return to the old hours.
	I ask Members to listen to what Dr. Chris Pond said in evidence to the Modernisation Committee. Speaking of the distant past, I agree, he said:
	I think the way we did business in the 70s and early 80s was, frankly, absurd. I think if Members look back on those days, a few may look back with nostalgia but, equally, there were times when Members were walking around like zombies during the Consolidated Fund and that was not a sensible way to conduct the business of a great nation. The more we approximate to normal working hours, I think the more effective we will eventually be.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: Sorry, but I do not have time.
	That is the view of the leader of the trade unions of the House of Commons.

Barbara Follett: Does my hon. Friend know how much sitting late in the evening costs in overtime and in taxis just to get Doorkeepers and Tea Room staff home?

Joan Ruddock: I do indeed; my hon. Friend makes a good point. Two members of staff of the House have been mugged leaving here late at night. They left in the hour before they could have had a free taxi.

Robert Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: I want to conclude; others want to speak.
	We have a solution to rebalancing the working week, making us more effective Members of the House, holding the Government to account, enabling us to identify with our constituents ensure that the business of the House can be communicated to them at a reasonable time of day. I commend the motion.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is always extremely courteous in giving way and in presenting her arguments. As she knows, I have a particularly personal interest in so far as my son-in-law, James Cartlidge, is the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for her constituency of Lewisham, Deptford. All I will say to her on James's behalf is that if she is finding it too stressful here, all she has to do is to give way to my son-in-law. Then she will be able to enjoy a more leisurely time.
	May I also say to the hon. Lady that in response to my intervention, she acknowledged what I think is an important point that shows a slight difference of view between two different camps in the debate? I agree that this is a different job. I do not believe that there are parallels between what we do here and the commercial world. Indeed, I do not believe this to be a job; it is a vocation.
	Every day that I come into this place I pinch myself, because I have been accorded such a privilege by my fellow citizens, who have sent me to this, the oldest Parliament in the world. Indeed, despite all the brickbats, it is respected throughout the world. I therefore do not believe in making parallels between the honour of serving the people of this country in this great Parliament and serving in the commercial world. They are two entirely different activities, which cannot be equated.
	I also take the view, which was advanced by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), that modernisation should not be considered synonymous with progress. Most Conservative Members, and many Labour Members too, regard the Government's use of the word modernisation as simply an attempt to close down the debate. All people need to do is advance a case on the ground that it is modernising, and that is the end of the argument. Apparently, no one can possibly be considered to have an argument worth listening to unless it involves modernisation. I take a totally different view.
	I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary, too, took that view in his evidence to the Committee. I hope that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who takes a very different view, has read the submission of his successor, because it encapsulates many of our arguments. The compression of our time brought about by the new hours has made life very difficult for us all.
	It is a loss, because as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) said, so many other things could previously be encompassed during the morning, such as visits from constituents. Yesterday, for example, I had visitors from the Pegasus Bridge museum in Normandy. I could show them the House of Lords, but I could not bring them here. We are not serving our constituents by denying them the opportunity of visits, although that is only one small part of itconstituency work, meeting people, undertaking telephone calls, all of which go on in the morning, are now increasingly denied to us.
	The e-mail system has now imposed even more burdens on us. Every constituent who has access to this new technology feels not only that they have instant access to us, which is of course entirely their right, but expects an instant answer, too.

Eric Forth: Well, they are not getting one.

Gerald Howarth: As my right hon. Friend says, in his case, they are not getting one. On one occasion, a constituent sent me an e-mail saying, I saw you open my previous e-mail at such and such a time, and that I had not yet replied. I responded, I am not an automaton sitting in front of a computer screen. I am a Member of Parliament and I have different duties.
	The Foreign Secretary also mentioned in his submission the effect that consolidation of Prime Minister's Question Time into a single day has had on attendance in the House and on the whole ambience of the House and the way in which it is treated. He is absolutely right to say that taking away that quarter of an hour of Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday has made Thursday into a come if you can day; otherwise, Members go off and do something else. That has reduced this place to at best a three-day week, but as far as most of us are concerned, it is more like a two-and-a-half-day week.
	I support the amendment of my namesake, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). It is an entirely sensible and modest proposition. It is not a return to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) called the dark old days. It is a sensible and modest proposal, and it should commend itself to all Members of the House.

George Howarth: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, will he reflect my view that if he and I agree, there really must be a consensus?

Gerald Howarth: Yes, and that is why it will not get reported, but I will come on to that in a minute.
	No one is suggesting that we return to all-night sittings. There was something mediaeval about all-night sittings, and I have no desire to return to them. A return to a 10 o'clock finish on Tuesday night has been represented, however, as somehow a return to all-night sittings. That is simply absurd. This is a compromise that therefore ought to commend itself to the House.
	The right hon. Member for Livingston made two points to which I want to refer. First, he said that the changes that we have instituted would bring us into line with others. I have tried to deal with that argument by saying that I do not believe that we are like others. If one works in the City these days, however, one is sometimes there all night and all weekend. My son is a trainee lawyer working in the City, and during the Marks and Spencer business, he was there from Friday until Monday morning. We should not therefore delude ourselves that we are somehow exceptional in that respect.
	What the right hon. Member for Livingston said about the convenience of the new hours for the media tells us an awful lot about this Government's desire to manipulate and to manage the news. The idea that a statement made at 4 o'clock in the afternoon will not get through to the people is simply ridiculous. It gets through to them on the 6 o'clock news, or on the 10 o'clock news, which most people watch. The hours are not in Parliament's interests, but they are unquestionably in the Government's interests. As I hope to be on the Government side of the House on 6 May, I could be said to have a vested interest in a system that benefits the Government, but I am here principally as a Member of Parliament. That is my first duty, and that is why I am not attending a conference on air power this afternoon. I am here because I think that this Parliament is important to the people.
	As always, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire spoke about this place with vigour and passion. He spoke of the failure of the press to report the House. Perhaps we are not as well perceived now as we have been in the past, but whereas the newspapersespecially what used to be called the broadsheetsused to feature an extensive report of comments made by individual Members, the only report now is the parliamentary sketch. Although it is often very amusing, the sketch is invariably trivial, and it invariably writes down this place and pokes fun at it. That is the purpose of the sketch. In the old days, the sketch sat alongside the objective serious report. Now there is no objective serious report, only the poking fun. Is it any wonder that the public thinks that this place is just fun, when that is the only way in which those who command the media are prepared to broadcast it to the nation?

Paul Farrelly: I too, to my shame, have worked City hours in the past, and I do not want to return to them. I have also been a journalist. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making now, however, has nothing to do with sitting hours. Logically, bringing forward our sitting hours means that newspapers are better able to meet their deadlines.

Gerald Howarth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but my point, which has already featured in the debate, concerns how this place is perceived. The press are not reporting this place, although the hours have been made easier for them. Perhaps their reporting was better when much of the activity took place when the sun was over the yard-arm than it is at a more abstemious time of day. I do not know; what I do know is that they are not reporting this place seriously.
	This afternoon we have a real opportunity to make a modest change that commands support throughout the House, which would even out our week a little, and which would not greatly inconvenience Members with young families who live in London and want to do things on weekday evenings. They would still have Wednesday and Thursday evenings. I think that in the interests of Parliament, in the interests of holding the Government to account and in the interests of managing our time in this place, a move to a 10 pm finish on Tuesdays is the very least we could do.

Brian H Donohoe: Given the time constraint, I shall be fairly brief.
	My amendment (m) makes a fairly modest proposal. It has been obvious to me since I came here in 1992, as I am sure it is to all Members, that our diaries are becoming fuller. We are busier not just here but in our constituencies. The aim of my amendment is to ensure that, on Thursday evening, there is just one vote, and we know when we will be leaving. We would finish our business at 6 pm, or if other amendments are carried, at 5 pm. That is desirable for many reasons.

John Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been here since 1992 and has never been busier. I have been here since 1983 and I have never been busier, but I have experienced two outright clashes between Select Committee and Standing Committee sittings during this week alone. Will he say something about that? We have a very compressed working week now: everything seems to pile on to Tuesday or Wednesday.

Brian H Donohoe: Although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, it has nothing to do with what I propose in the amendment.
	The amendment will allow Members locally who are[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know Mr. Speaker's views about electrical devices that go off in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has done nothing more than disturb his own speech on this occasion.

Brian H Donohoe: I apologise unreservedly. It is these newfangled ones. It has never done that before. It must have a mind of its own and known that I was on my feet in the Chamber. Someone may have paged me to tell me that I should shut up, but I do not intend to do so.
	I was talking about hon. Members being able to get to meetings. Hon. Members have mentioned that they make use of Monday mornings. We know when we are coming and we know when every day's business starts. The problem is that, every day of the week, we do not have a clue when the business will end.
	I am one of the Members who has to travel fair distances on a Thursday night. This week, for example, I have had to book three different flights. There is not much sense in that. Because of the uncertainty about travel arrangements, as well as the other points, the amendment has a lot of merit. My point should be considered.
	From some discussions that have taken place, I know that there is a fair strength of feeling in the House about the matter. During just a couple of Divisions, I managed to secure some 52 names. It may not be enough to get a majority, but I appeal to all to consider what I have asked for on the basis of what it will entail.
	The Leader of the House mentioned the amendment, as did others. I am satisfied in part with what he said because it went some way towards what I am asking for. However, on the basis of the record over the past few weeks, I would still want to press the amendment to a vote. In the past few weeks, on the Tuesday and the Wednesday, the business has collapsed early without any vote. If the business managers of this place are worth their salt, and I presume that they are, they should be able to order the business of the week so that, on a Thursday, we did not have the kind of business that he mentioneddebates on Iraq, on Second Readings and on the Railways Bill, which takes place this Thursday. Because of that fact more than any other, I believe that what I am proposing is sensible. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support me.

Richard Shepherd: When I was first elected just over 25 years ago, I was conscious that I was sent here with the ability to express on behalf of the community that gave me a majority some of its fears and views on the way in which public and Government business was conducted. Along with that went a vote. If there is a scandal between a generation ago and today, it is that there is a great diminution in the consideration of public business on this Floor. That is detailed in the Modernisation Committee report of last year. It is detailed in the Procedure Committee report.
	The scandal of the current House of Commons is that it is no longer discussing, or even considering vast chunks of important public legislation. That is a fact. We have had legislation that goes to the heart of our freedoms and the Government's obsession with a security and police state, but we have not been able to discuss it on the Floor of the House of Commons until it comes back from the Lords.
	I ask myself: is that a consequence of the hours that we sit or of other rules that we impose on ourselves? Is that because we no longer consistently start business at 2.30pm, but do so earlier? I do not think that it is a question of the hours that we sit, whether morning or afternoon. Something else has happened. One has only to look at the Order Paper: No vote; No debate; No debate; No debate. The very essence and vitality of this House is being sucked out. But do I believe that that is because we sit at 11.30 am? In truth, I do not, which is why I am indifferent to the motion. I will come to express the views of Aldridge-Brownhills as best as I am able, whether it is 9 o'clock at night or 9 o'clock in the morning.
	If I am being truthful, this House is looking to its own convenience. That is what this debate is about. It is much more convenient for modern people with young families in a modern world to go off home at 7.30 pm. I hope that the worm will turn in this House on the Standing Orders that mute our voice. The only war debate that we have had that was important in terms of our vote was limited, and by whom? By the Government, and to one day. There were hundreds of us who wanted to speak in that debate.
	The heart of this place is being sucked out, not because of the hours but because of ourselves and the rules that we have constructed. In truth, the report of the Modernisation Committee, of which I am an inadequate member, shames me. The quality of work that comes out of Select Committee reports across a wide range of areas is not the detailed scholarship that we used to see.
	I wanted to see from this debate that the House believed in its function, which is to look at the law. We have that one vote that we were sent with, to say aye or no. I wanted the House to understand that every one of us must be able to speak on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is what I wanted to see from the debate.

Alice Mahon: I realise that time is against me, but I wish to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to bring back Tuesday evenings. When I was elected to this House 18 years ago, I was acutely aware of the privilege that the people of Halifax had bestowed upon me. This is not like any other job in the world. In this House, we have a voice and we can speak for our constituents. We are not here to do a nine-to-five office job.
	When the hours were changed, we were told that it would make Parliament more effective, but I think that the change is destroying Parliament. The place is dead and the truth is that our work is now compressed into two and a half days a week. The conflict between what a normal MP does and attending the Chamber is growing. One need only look at the poor attendance at main speeches to see that.
	The second point is that public access has been seriously restricted. I have taken great pride in inviting schools, particularly sixth forms, down to the House of Commons. I usually book a room for a question and answer session and try to take them into the Chamber. That has paid off over the years. I have had volunteers from university in my office who say that that they visited here 14 years ago. We cannot do that now unless we come down on a Sunday night for a Monday morning.
	Lunchtime meetings have been dismissed as long lunches, but I meet a variety of people then and I have to choose between doing that or coming here for questions. I am also enthusiastic about all-party groups because my experience of them has been good. Many years ago, I helped to set up the all-party breast cancer group, which has influenced Government policy and been a huge success. Since the advent of the new hours, I have had to step down as one of the joint chairs and I have also had to stand down from other groups close to my heart. That is a shame.

Jackie Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not an argument about modernisation of the House, but a discussion about whether we can do our jobs properly? The present hours prevent us from doing so.

Alice Mahon: I could not agree more. I also wish to reject the notion that women do not want to enter Parliament because of the hours. We have just had a selection procedure in Halifax, at which brilliant women from John O'Groats to Land's End queued up. Not one of them asked about the hours in this place. In 18 years, I have never had an e-mail, letter or message that has said, I would vote for you, but you work silly hours. No one at any surgery has ever said that either. It is nonsense to claim that our hours affect whether people vote.
	The new hours have severely damaged Parliament and its effectiveness. The Chamber is half empty and the scrutiny of the Executive does not happen as it should. Committee sittings have been disrupted. We invite expert witnesses, but have to leave them when the Division bell goes. What is the response of the so-called Modernisation Committee? It advises us to meet in the evenings or on a Saturday morning. It is nonsense. Nor have I have ever seen before so many vacancies on popular Select Committees on the Labour party Whip.
	Members no longer get to see Ministers. They used to have to eat here at least a couple of nights a week. They now go off to some fashionable restaurant or club. They come here in a chauffeur-driven car and live in a little elite bubble, and we cannot get at them. I used to get at Ministers regularly when we worked late. Ministers no longer have as much contact with Back Benchers and that removes them from the real world. Many of my constituents work on a 24-hour clock. I did it myself when my children were younger and it is nonsense to say that people do not.
	Outside meetings are also suffering. Somebody has already mentioned the fact that we had only one day to debate the war, which was possibly the most important vote in my 18 years in Parliament. I have held meetings in Westminster Hall and other parts of the Palace and the security people have come in and said, It's half-past 8 and we need you to empty the place. It is sad that such meetings should be shut down.
	The new hours have shrunk the parliamentary week, interfered with MPs' activities, undermined public access, made no difference to women wanting to come here and reduced contact between MPs and Ministers, not to mention contact among MPs. The new hours have destroyed one of the greatest debating chambers in the world and the Modernisation Committee should vote for the change back.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Phil Woolas: We set out to achieve consensus and it seems we have done so in some parts of the House.
	This has been an important debate. The decisions that we are about to make will affect the way the House operates and the way it is perceived outside. I have been asked for two commitments on behalf of the Government, so I shall deal with those now. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked for a commitment that, if we were in government after the general election, we would review the allocation of Opposition days on the basis of proportionality of representation. That would be our policy, and the allocation would be reviewed. I appreciate that he understands that that is not part of our debate today.
	The second request was from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who asked about the Procedure and Modernisation Committees. As he knows, that is a matter for the next Parliament and is not directly related to this debate. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard the points that he made.
	The Modernisation Committee has considered carefully the options for future sittings of the House and produced a package of proposals that it considers the best way forward. The package means that we would keep our current hours on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, but that the start of Thursday's sitting would be brought forward to 10.30 am. Maintaining the moment of interruption at 6 pm would mean that Thursday would be restored as a full sitting day. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled a motionthe main motion under considerationthat would implement the package.
	The Modernisation Committee also recommended that the House should be able to express a clear view on Tuesday sittingsa matter on which the House was unfortunately unable to reach a consensus. To facilitate that expression, I have tabled amendments that would return Tuesday to the old hours of 2.30 pm to 10 pmthe same hours that obtain on a Monday. I do not personally support those amendments, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) spoke with his usual clarity and elegance. Instead, I urge the House to join me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in voting against them.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the help that he has given on this matter, if not for the way that he will vote this evening. Does he accept that the problem was that the Modernisation Committee declined to accept the consensus that was achieved?

Phil Woolas: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I am grateful for the thanks that he expressed to me and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in respect of trying to reach a consensus. I always thought that it would be a difficult job, but my right hon. Friend has to reach across the spectrum of the whole House, as I hope that my hon. Friend acknowledges.
	Hon. Members on all sides of the argument would be well advised to listen to my next point, which I want to emphasise. If the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were to fall, in the next Parliament we would have to revert to the hours of 2.30 pm to 10 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and to the hours of 11.30 am to 7 pm on Thursdays.

Eric Forth: Hooray!

Phil Woolas: I do not think that even the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) went that far in his speech.
	Some people outside the House have suggested that we would revert to sittings lasting all night. They were abolished by previous Standing Orders, but we would push votes and debates after the moment of interruption up to midnight and even beyond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) for analysing what happened in previous Sessions. The results show that we went beyond the moment of interruption 78 times in 2003, and that debates often finished after midnight, even before votes were held. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The general conversation in the Chamber means that I am having difficulty hearing the Minister. The House must listen to the Minister.

Phil Woolas: Those who support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) may wish to bear in mind the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House regarding whipped business on a Thursday. I hope that they will bear in mind also that delaying votes by deferred Division on major businesscurrently, deferred Divisions are used in respect of secondary businesswould have a significant impact on the timing of business in the other place. My right hon. Friend and I are also concerned about that.
	Furthermore, the House should bear in mind another point raised in the debatethat delaying votes would mean that we would not be able to reach a conclusion on a Thursday night. I also urge the House to reject the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), as they would undermine the objective of the Modernisation Committee's central recommendation that Thursday should be restored to a full sitting day.
	This has been an excellent debate. Unfortunately, we have been unable to reach the consensus that we set out to reach, but we have certainly narrowed the area of disagreement. Greater consensus exists now than existed during the debate in October 2002, which has been to the benefit of the whole House. I urge Members to join the Leader of the House in voting against the amendments and for the main motion as it stands, and for the motions on connecting Parliament with the public and the car mileage allowance. We must now come to a firm decision, so that Members and staff can plan with certainty for the Parliament ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, if an amendment is agreed to the motion on sitting hours, the Question will immediately thereafter be put on any consequential amendments. When the amendments have been disposed of, the Question will be put on the main Question on sitting hours, amended or not, as the case may be. The Questions will then be put forthwith on the motions on connecting Parliament with the public and on the car mileage allowance. The first amendment relates to the time of Tuesday sittings.
	Amendment proposed: (a), in line 6, leave out at half-past two o'clock, on Tuesdays and and insert and Tuesdays at half-past two o'clock, on.[Mr. George Howarth.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 225.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 January].
	Consequential amendments made: (b), in line 9, leave out 'Tuesday or'.
	(c), in line 14, leave out
	'at seven o'clock on Tuesdays and'
	and insert
	'and Tuesdays, at seven o'clock on'.
	(d), in line 17, leave out from 'after' to 'Wednesday' in line 20 and insert
	Tuesdays' insert 'between half-past nine o'clock and two o'clock;
	(aa) on Wednesdays beginning at half-past nine o'clock, which shall be suspended from half-past eleven o'clock until half-past two o'clock and may then continue for up to a further two and a half hours; except that if the'.
	(e), in line 39, leave out ', four o'clock on Tuesday or' and insert
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on'.
	(f), in line 45, leave out
	', eight o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, eight o'clock on'.
	(g), in line 48, leave out
	', half-past eight o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, half past eight o'clock on'.
	(h), in line 54, leave out
	'four o'clock on any specified Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on any specified'.
	(i), in line 59, leave out
	'four o'clock if it is a Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock if it is a'.
	(j), in line 61, leave out
	'half-past ten o'clock on a Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, half-past ten o'clock on a'
	(k), in line 67, leave out
	'four o'clock on Tuesday or'
	and insert
	'or Tuesday, four o'clock on'.
	(l), in line 77, leave out from 'insert' to 'Wednesdays' in line 80 and insert
	'or Tuesdays, between the hours of twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock in the morning and half-past one o'clock in the afternoon on'.[Mr. Donohoe.]
	Amendment proposed: (m), in line 64, at end insert
	'Line 6, at beginning insert Subject to paragraph (2A) below,.
	Line 28, at end insert
	(2A) Sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph (2) above shall not apply to sittings of the House on Thursdays..'.[Mr. Donohoe.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 388.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

CONNECTING PARLIAMENT WITH THE PUBLIC

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [24 January],
	That this House notes with approval the First Report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons of Session 200304, on Connecting Parliament with the Public (HC 368) and the First Special Report from the Committee containing the House of Commons Commission's response thereto (HC 69); agrees that the House should make itself more accessible, make it easier for people to understand the work of Parliament and do more to communicate its activity to the general public; welcomes the steps taken or planned as set out in the Commission's response, including those planned to bring about the radical upgrade of the website envisaged by the Modernisation Committee; endorses the Committee's conclusion that further consideration should be given to facilities such as a Parliamentary roadshow in the light of evaluation of other outreach initiatives; authorises the House of Commons Commission to fund the publication and distribution of a new voters' guide; and would welcome more proactive promotion to the media and the public of the House and its work.[Mr. Hain.]
	The House divided: Ayes 375, Noes 14.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [24 January],
	That, in the opinion of this House, the reduction in the rates at which the car mileage allowance is payable till they are the same as the car mileage rates approved by the Inland Revenue, which was agreed by the House on 3rd November 2004, should be phased in between 1st April 2005 and 1st April 2009, or the day after the general election after next, whichever is the later; and the rates to be in effect for each year should be determined by the Members Estimate Committee; and the higher rate of the allowance should continue to be payable up to a total of 20,000 miles and the lower rate thereafter.[Mr. Hain.]
	The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 249.

Question accordingly negatived.

COMMISSIONERS FOR REVENUE AND CUSTOMS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(9)(Programming of Bills),
	That the Order of 8th December 2004, as varied on 10th January 2005, in relation to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill be further varied by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following:
	1. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order at this day's sitting.
	2. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order at this day's sitting.[Dawn Primarolo.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill

As amended in the Committee, considered.

New Clause 3
	  
	Declaration of Confidentiality

'(1)   Each person who is appointed under this Act as a Commissioner or officer of Revenue and Customs shall make a declaration acknowledging his obligation of confidentiality under section 17.
	(2)   A declaration under subsection (1) shall be made 
	(a)   as soon as is reasonably practicable following the person's appointment, and
	(b)   in such form, and before such a person, as the Commissioners may direct.
	(3)   For the purposes of this section, the renewal of a fixed term appointment shall not be treated as an appointment.'. [Dawn Primarolo.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 4.Freedom of Information.

Dawn Primarolo: On Second Reading and in Committee, I made it clear that the new department, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, would take taxpayer confidentiality every bit as seriously as its predecessors. The new clauses underline our commitment to taxpayer confidentiality, and I hope that as such they will be uncontroversial.
	Let me remind Members briefly of our high standards of confidentiality. The issue is taken seriously by everyone: staff, Members in all parts of the House and, indeed, taxpayers. The Bill contains provisions for safeguarding taxpayer confidentiality that strengthen those previously available. That includes, in clause 17, a civil sanction for unauthorised disclosure of any information held by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs which is binding on appointment, and in clause 18, in relation to customer confidential information, the additional safeguard of a criminal sanction. That too applies to all functions of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	Let me deal first with new clause 3. On Second Reading and in particular in Committee, Membersparticularly the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)expressed concern that the Inland Revenue oath was being superseded. They said they accepted that the Bill provided for enhanced enforcement of taxpayer confidentiality, but considered the oath not only symbolic but important to remind members of the new department of their obligations.
	Both my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I consider it a great honour to be Ministers in charge of both the current department and the new one. We know that the staff, operating to the very highest standards, accept the concerns as well, and we have every confidence in them; but, having considered carefully, my hon. Friend and I still believe that the statutory duty in the Bill as it stands strengthens the provisions safeguarding taxpayer confidentiality. The duty included in the Bill is immediately binding on staff on appointment and covers all functions of the department. All members of staff currently employed in the department adhere to that, and understand their obligations.
	My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I felt that the House should have an opportunity to convey a united view, from all parties, of the great importance that we attach to taxpayer confidentiality.
	Therefore, while appreciating that the staff already employed by the departments understand that, the new clause requires new staff joining the department once the Bill has received Royal Assent to sign a declaration. That is recognised as bringing a ceremonial quality to the equivalent of the oath. We would not want to give the appearance of diminishing the high and excellent standards that those fine departments have adhered to for taxpayers' confidentiality. I hope that the House will take the view from all the parties represented here that we are sending a clear message. Although I am satisfied with the safeguards on taxpayer confidentiality, the new clause will require new staff to acknowledge the duty of confidentiality under the Act, before a witness.
	New clause 4 similarly deals with taxpayer confidentiality and how the Bill relates to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a technical clarification that aims to make it clear how the Bill will interact with that Act. Compliance with the Act is, of course, Government policy.
	Taxpayer confidentiality remains of paramount importance in the new department. As I have said, for that reason, the Bill ensures that information connected with a taxpayer is not discloseable under the Freedom of Information Act. That was always the intention, but the new clause puts that beyond doubtthat information will not be discloseable under that Act. However, much of the information that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will hold is not taxpayer confidentialfor example, information about the department's internal processes. The new clause clarifies that such information will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, if a person requests information that is not taxpayer confidential, that request will be considered under the Act.
	I hope that the House will feel confident in these two new clauses and confident in the management and staff of the new department, who will be committed to the principles of taxpayer confidentiality. There will be no reduction in the exceptionally high standards that they have always followed. I hope that, in agreeing these new clauses, all hon. Members will not only acknowledge the professionalism and dedication of the staff, but agree that we have a role in supporting them in the discharge of the duty on taxpayers' confidentiality and that that is well served by the new clauses.

Andrew Tyrie: It is nice to be able to come to the Dispatch Box and, for once, agree almost entirely with what a Minister has just said. I have had only a brief chance to examine new clause 4; I discussed it with a lawyer this morning. As far as I can tell, although I have not had much time to look at it, it does what the Paymaster General says it does and certainly what she has described as her intention. On that basis, we support it.
	I am particularly pleased that the Government have had a change of heart over the retention of the oaththe declaration as it is more properly called. As the Paymaster General knows, we were concerned about that. We came to see her before Christmas, when she first raised it with us, although there were rumours some time before that there might be changes. I expressed much stronger concern at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in Committee. I am pleased that she has listened carefully to the debate in Committee and come back to us with a new clause that I think does what we require. The Paymaster General is right to say that there should be all-party support for the retention of confidentiality. I back her in that, as it is at the heart of safeguarding the Revenue and crucial to safeguarding people's right to privacy and, therefore, to their trust in the Revenue service.
	I am particularly pleased that we were able to make progress on this in light of the support that I have had from a number of colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) who spared me the trouble of tabling an amendment by tabling his own, which I felt able to support. He brings great expertise to the subject as deputy Chairman of the Treasury Committee. He has thought about the issue a great deal and the scrutiny of that Committee has been of use to us in the Standing Committee.
	None the less, I have several questions for the Paymaster General. The new clause on the oath, as drafted, leaves some discretion to the commissioners to decide how exactly the oath will be performed. I shall not read the passage out, to save the House time, but will she confirm that that discretion will be exercised to ensure that the oath will be performed as it is now in the Inland Revenue? Will she make sure that before there is any change in the way it is done, she or her successor will be consulted? Will she commit the Government to come to the House with an oral statement if, subsequently, the commissioners decide to vary the way in which that duty of confidentiality is dealt with?

John Burnett: In Committee we had lengthy debates on this subject and the Paymaster General has honoured the commitments she gave us then. She couched her commitment with one or two safeguards, but we now have a provision that has met the expectations of Members on this side of the House.
	I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to give a further commitment today that all individuals with access to taxpayer-sensitive information as a result of this Bill or any other enactment will have to abide by the oath. I mean by that members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as well as anyone else.
	That is important because the successful collection of tax depends on many factors, not least the perception of fairness and confidence by the public that their affairs will be kept confidential. It is vital that taxpayers are assured of the Inland Revenue's ability to keep their affairs secret, which is the principal way in which the tax base is preserved.
	Members on both sides believe that we have an Inland Revenue that compares favourably with any similar organisation anywhere else in the world. It has an excellent reputation. We all concede that Customs and Excise has more of a policing role. Nevertheless, we agree that we should not accept any dilution in the standards of the Inland Revenue and Customs in dealing with legitimate individual or corporate taxpayers' affairs. We welcome the new clause. We did so in Committee, where we also welcomed the Minister's commitment. I have discussed the matter with members of the Inland Revenue. They believe that the oath is of considerable significance to them. It is not in a clause in a 22-page employment document, but brings home forcefully to members of the Inland Revenue their particular duty of confidentiality.
	We agree with the new clauses, but we would be grateful if the Paymaster General would confirm that everyone who will have access to sensitive and confidential taxpayer documents or files will be obliged to take the oath and will be bound by similar criminal and employment contract constraints to those that we discussed in Committee.

Michael Fallon: I join in the general welcome for the new clauses and we do not need to make a huge meal of them. It is refreshing to see an amendment tabled in Committee and then put in the Bill by the Minister only 10 days later. I congratulate her on that. She was right to strengthen the confidentiality provisions in the Bill, and clause 17 will be of enormous assistance. It was also right to go further than simply the standard employment contract.
	I only wish that in introducing the new clause today, the Paymaster General had not used the word ceremonial. An oath is not just ceremonial: it was the solemnity and seriousness of the oath that convinced members of the Select Committee that we should not modernise too far. I thank the Paymaster General for listening and for restoring the oath and I hope that we can now accept the new clause without much further ado.

Dawn Primarolo: I was asked two brief questions. The first was about the nature of the declaration or oath, and why the precise wording has been left to the commissioners. The declaration will be a formal acknowledgement, made in front of a witness, of the duty of confidentiality under the legislation. The details of the text are best left to be developed in conjunction with the contract of employment, so the wording does not need to be included in the Bill. It is a matter for the Department to decide the exact wording, but it must be in the form of a full acknowledgement of the confidentiality obligations. I see no reason why a copy of the wording should not be placed in the Library, so that Members can see how it reinforces the duty.
	I take the point that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) made about the choice of wording. We are all seeking to ensure that new members of the Departmentcurrent members of the Inland Revenue have already taken the oathshould experience no diminution of its clear intent. I will make sure that that is the case and that, when completed, a copy is placed in the Library. I will also let hon. Members know that it has been placed there.
	The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about the IPCC. The Bill provides safeguards to control the way in which the prosecutors and the scrutiny bodies throughout the UK can use and disclose information received from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. That includes the criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure. However, it would not be appropriate to ask staff to sign the oath for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The new body's prosecution office and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations should be seen to be independent. The jurisdictions of the devolved Administrations go beyond the functions of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and they have procedures for reinforcing staff understanding of the obligations in respect of confidentiality and the criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosures.
	We have made the Administrations independent for very good reasons, and it would be inappropriate to ask their staff to sign up to an oath for her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. However, I assure the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon that those organisations have their own procedures for ensuring that all staff understand their clear duty, and the criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	  
	Freedom of Information

'(1)   Revenue and customs information relating to a person, the disclosure of which is prohibited by section 17(1), is exempt information by virtue of section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (prohibitions on disclosure) if its disclosure
	(a)   would specify the identity of the person to whom the information relates, or
	(b)   would enable the identity of such a person to be deduced.
	(2)   Except as specified in subsection (1), information the disclosure of which is prohibited by section 17(1) is not exempt information for the purposes of section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
	(3)   In subsection (1) revenue and customs information relating to a person has the same meaning as in section 18.'.[Dawn Primarolo.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Report on Establishment of Commissioners

'(1)   On the second anniversary of the coming into force of this Act in accordance with section 51(1) the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall establish a working group under an independent chairman which shall report on the operation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	(2)   The Chairman of the working group established under subsection (1) shall not be a Commissioner for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs or an officer of Revenue and Customs or of Her Majesty's Treasury.
	(3)   A report under subsection (1) shall include assessments of
	(a)   the performance of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs since its establishment,
	(b)   the direct costs of effecting the merger,
	(c)   the direct cost savings achieved by the merger,
	(d)   whether efficiency gains have been achieved as a result of the establishment of the single revenue authority including, but not restricted to, the effects of the merger on the tax yield,
	(e)   the overall compliance burden, including the impact on day-to-day customer service and the experience of taxpayers in dealing with the single revenue authority,
	(f)   the performance of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the area of information technology and data systems,
	(g)   the working relationship between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and Her Majesty's Treasury including, but not restricted to, the adequacy of arrangements for accountability,
	(h)   the performance of the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office including, but not limited to, a cost-benefit analysis,
	(i)   the work undertaken preparatory to the merger, and
	(j)   any other area that the chairman of the working group deems appropriate.
	(4)   But a report under subsection (1) shall not be expected to include any assessment of
	(a)   the annual performance of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs in discharging their responsibilities as tax administrators and collectors, except in so far as these have been affected by the merger, or
	(b)   any matter (whether relating to value for money or otherwise) that would fall to be considered by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the course of annual audit.
	(5)   A report under subsection (1) shall be completed within twelve months and shall be laid before the House of Commons and published.
	(6)   In this section the merger means the merger between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.'.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Tyrie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), in line 26, after 'merger,', insert
	'(ia) the effectiveness of the overall staffing levels in relation to the provision of service.'
	Amendment (b), in line 26, at end insert
	'(ib) the extent to which improvements in customer service, quality and consistency have been made; the extent to which increased revenue from tax, customs duties and VAT income has been realised; and what measures have been taken to improve the deterrence and detection of crime arising from illegal imports and tax fraud.'.
	New clause 2Transfer of property: management of assets
	(l)The Treasury shall make a scheme identifying any rights and liabilities in property and information technology systems owned and operated by the old commissioners which shall by virtue of sections 46 and 47 rest in the new Commission.
	(2)   The scheme shall include provision that any such assets identified therein shall be managed in accordance with best value and in the interests of both the customers and the staff of Revenue and Customs.
	(3)   The scheme may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 30 [Clause 4], leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 40 [Clause 4], leave out
	'also have all the other'
	and insert 'have all the'.

Andrew Tyrie: I shall be as brief as possible. The new clause could allow us to have another canter around the territory that we covered in Committee, but I do not intend to do that today.
	The new clause goes to the heart of the Bill. It ensures that after two years the Government would be required to undertake a comprehensive review of the merger. We need to know whether the department is working as it should, and whether the planning needed to make the merger a success was undertaken.
	I said on Second Reading that we did not oppose the merger in principle. On the contrarythe Opposition believe that with careful management and planning it might be possible to secure some modest savings and extract more value for taxpayers' money. However, have the Government done what is needed to secure those savings? If not, we may discover that the merger was not worth the candle.
	We are talking about the merger of two huge departmentstwo leviathans that have been around a long time. Their cultures differ markedly, they have been governed by different statutes and the revenues that they try to collect are very different. This is a big undertaking. There is a world of difference between trying to secure an up-to-date income tax return from a self-employed physiotherapist in Dulwich and trying to secure revenue on tobacco at the ports to try and stop smuggling, but we are trying to bring the two cultures together.
	On Second Reading, I expressed regret at the poor quality of the regulatory impact assessment and the paucity of information about the savings that the merger would secure. To clarify the issue, I set out four criteria to judge the performance of the new Revenue department. First, would its creation increase the yield or, to put that another way, would it reduce the tax gap? Secondly, what will happen to the compliance burdenthat is, the hassle that millions of people could face if the merger goes wrong? Thirdly, how big are the transitional costs of the merger? Fourthly, what will happen to the quality of the department in the long runto its morale and the standards that it sets itself?
	We pressed those points in different ways not only on Second Reading but throughout our deliberations in Committee, and to be frank, we have had very little but general assurances from the Government on any of them. That will not do, and we need to be clear what is at stake.
	The worst-case scenario is very bad. If the Government have not done enough of the necessary preparatory work, the merger could be a disasterfor the Exchequer and the taxpayer. Even if there is an adverse effect on the tax yield of, for example, only 0.1 per cent.the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) made this point on Second Readinghundreds of millions of pounds would be at risk, thereby adding to the black hole in the Chancellor's accounts. And even if the compliance burden increases by only a tiny amount, billions of pounds in extra costs could be imposed on businesses and the self-employed.
	I should point out in passing that I think that I can support the amendments to my new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who draws particular attention to the likely effect on the yield of changes in staffing levels. As I have said, with careful planning it should be possible to find substantial staff savings. To put it another way, as a result of the merger it should be possible to increase the productivity of both Revenue officers and customs officers. We succeeded in increasing productivity in the 1980s, but it was not an easy job, and it required a lot of care and thought; what worries me is that there is little evidence of that from the Government.
	A lot is being spent on new IT systems, but I am afraid that that does not inspire me with much confidence. I shall not go through, as I did on Second Reading, the Government's sorry track record in that regard, but it is not a happy story. Nor does the Government's confusion on Second Reading as to the savings that they hope to make from, and the costs associated with, the merger fill me with confidence. At the beginning of that debate, the Paymaster General said that the merger would result in efficiency savings of 500 million, but in his winding-up speech, the Economic Secretary said that such savings would amount to only 100 million. I would have expected the Government to have a clearer view of the merger's costs and benefits, and this is why the Bill should contain a commitment to a review. We need to ensure that we have got this process right. We need the pressure of an impending review to bear down on those implementing these changes, to ensure that they do their utmost to deliver what we need.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I, too, am among those who have some doubts about the merger. Is he suggesting that if the review concludes that the merger has proved very bad, a de-merger should take place, or is he merely arguing for an ongoing inspection of the new service?

Andrew Tyrie: By the time, after two years, that we have been through the merger and the review, we will need a de-merger like a hole in the headbut I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We will need to ensure that this thing works, and I would not be surprised to find that, despite the opinion polls, it is we Conservatives who will have to do so. We will try to find a way to ensure that the tax yield is not being imperilled and that the compliance burden is not rising inexorably as a consequence. But it is not an easy job.
	The Government have had years in which to plan for this merger. We must bear it in mind that not long ago, the Paymaster General was saying that a merger was not worth the candle. She told the House in 2000 that the Government had looked carefully at and thought about a merger, but had decided that they could get all the benefits of the synergy of the two departments without a full merger. Now, we are told that those benefits can be achieved only through such a merger. That does not fill me with confidence, eitherbut I am repeating a point that I made on Second Reading, which I do not want to do this evening.
	If the Government have done the careful planning about which I have been talking, I do not understand how a review such as that proposed in new clause 1 could worry them. On the contrary, it could provide a written testimonial to justify an award to the Paymaster General for getting things right. However, if she does not agree to new clause 1, thousands of professionals who deal daily with the Revenue and Customs and millions of taxpayers will have the right to ask why she will not permit a review of her own handiwork. If the Government do not like new clause 1, what are they afraid of? The measure is central to finding out whether the merger works. If the Government's response does not show that they will be flexible, we shall press the new clause to a Division.

John McDonnell: I speak as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group, which has members from both sides of the House. We meet representatives of the PCS regularly, which enables us to draw on the experiences of staff who operate such services. It has been invaluable and enlightening for us to draw on that depth of professionalism. I associate myself with the Paymaster General's comments about the excellence of the service and the professional commitment of the staff.
	The running theme of new clause 1, amendments (a) and (b) to it, which I tabled, and new clauses 2, 4 and 5 is an attempt to ensure that there is openness and transparency in the process and that there is adequate scrutiny and accountability, especially to the House. Let me be clear. The PCS and a large majority of hon. Members from all parties now support the merger of the departments and want it to work effectively. We take our lead from the Treasury Committee report that was published in 2000, and many of us are pleased that the Government took that on board, were flexible and returned with a commitment that the merger would go ahead. That demonstrates that the Government were listening to Parliament on that occasion and subsequently, as a result of various reviews.
	We would all welcome assurances from the Minister that the process of the merger will be subject to close monitoring and that regular reports will be made to Parliament to identify, using clear criteria, whether the merger is proceeding successfully. If there were problems, corrective action could thus be taken following the scrutiny of Parliament. Additionally, hon. Members could be engaged in discussions about not only how the performance should be monitored, but how solutions could be found and implemented.
	New clause 1 is a straightforward measure that details the review process and the elements that we would like the Government to include in such a review. I am not fixated on a two-year period or a formal review, but I want assurances that the Government will look at the agenda, that the process will go forward and that there will be adequate reporting to Parliament.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key performance indicator of the newly merged department will be the extent to which it is able to bridge the tax gap, which is currently estimated to be about 30 billion a year? We should examine the shadow economy, law enforcement and the various forms of evasion that are too common in our economy at present.

John McDonnell: That is exactly one of the points that the amendments try to address. Amendment (b) sets explicitly and straightforwardly as part of the review process an examination of the extent to which customer service improves and the quality and consistency of practices. It also provides that it should be determined whether targets for increased revenue are being met so that we can tackle that tax gap.

Kelvin Hopkins: On Second Reading, mention was made of the possibility of exposing the tax gap by increasing the number of VAT inspectors and Inland Revenue inspectors because they can generate many times their own salary. This would be beneficial. Is my hon. Friend implying that that will be taken into account?

John McDonnell: That links amendment (b) to amendment (a). In amendment (b), the purpose is to try to identify the specific targeted role that the merger can undertake in increasing revenue and tackling the tax gap. In addition to that, there are the issues of fraud detection and, as a result of that, deterrence. That can be achieved only if there is adequate staffing. That is why I tabled amendment (a). We need to have a continuous review of overall staffing levels in relation to the level of service that we are demanding from professional staff.
	I reiterate my continuing anxiety, which I expressed on Second Reading, as did other Members on both sides of the House, that in the midst of the Gershon review proposals, which will hit the Department with a reduction of posts that has increased to 16,500, specific to the merger will be the reduction of 3,200 posts. We now have clarity about savings. Overall savings on staffing will be 500 million and the rationalisation process will result in savings of 100 million. My anxiety is that for a saving of 100 million we may be losing the professional staff that are required to recoup so much more tax, to detect crime and to deter tax avoidance. That loss of staff could undermine the savings figures.
	We need to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has a process that will enable staffing levels to be reviewed from the very start of the merger programme and throughout the settling down of the new department. There are real anxieties among the professionals on the front line. They fear that going for such a level of staff cuts will have a dire impact on service delivery. In that event, not only will customers complain but the Treasury will miss out on tackling the budget gap, which in past debates we have identified as between 30 million and 40 million.
	The second element of my amendments goes to the discussion that took place in Committee about the transfer of rights and liabilities. There was an extensive debate and I do not wish again to go through the history of the Mapeley STEPS contract. That matter was adequately exhibited in Committee. However, there is still a lack of confidence in the ability to ensure the proper management of these schemes and contracts, both in terms of property and of new technology. That is why there is an explicit reference in new clause 2, which was similarly debated in Committee, to best value.
	The debate is taking place on a day when yet again we have had another report on the failure of a computer contract in government. The Child Support Agency report is a dire warning, again, of what can go wrong in information technology contracts that are not properly specified and monitored, and are not produced in a way that allows for parliamentary scrutiny.
	The reason for introducing new clause 2 is explicitly to say that we need a scheme that embodies best value in the transfer of rights and liabilities. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that that is integral to the overall processes of Government, and I accept that. However, given the concerns that we have had as a result of the Mapeley STEPS arrangement, the EDS performance within the Department and the revelations today regarding the CSA contracts, I think that there is a need to restore confidence by having a specific statement about the importance of best value within the development of these transfers.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend recall a point that I made on Second Reading, when I suggested that more extensive in-house IT capacity could overcome some of the problems inherent in contracting out?

John McDonnell: The new clause demonstrates that if we had a thorough commitment to best value we would enable in-house bids to be made, as is the case with best value in local government and other services. There would not be prejudice against the public sector, as has sometimes been the case in the past in the awarding of central Governments contracts. There is a need to reassure the general public and the House with an explicit statement in legislation that best value will apply to the merger of the departments, and that there will be adequate scrutiny of the best value scheme that is introduced. Only when the House is confident that there is thorough parliamentary scrutiny will we restore confidence in the ability of the new department and other Government Departments to manage their own affairs with regard to new technology and property schemes.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with the process of parliamentary scrutiny. There was some debate in Committee about the definition of the commissioners' functions. To put it bluntly, the amendments would require them to retain existing functions. If new functions are transferred to them, or if there is a transfer of functions away from the department, there should be parliamentary scrutiny and an explicit parliamentary decision by the affirmative procedure, rather than by the negative procedure envisaged in the Bill. That would restore confidence in the process of the merger and the future operation of the new department.
	In Committee, the Paymaster General said that the transfer of functions in the Bill would take place using the process that pertains to other Departments, and would be achieved either by Order in Council or negative resolution. That was a revelation to me, and I would prefer all transfers of departmental functions to be brought before the House so that it can make a decision using the affirmative procedure. That would facilitate proper scrutiny of such transfers and delegations of powers between departments. It is even more important, when establishing a new department, that we are clear about its functions, so the House should engage with the process of the construction, allocation and, at times, the transfer of those functions. We should participate in the bedding down of the new department and increase the confidence of the general public and the House in its operation.
	I would welcome assurances from the Minister about the process of continuous monitoring. Will the agenda set out in new clause 1 and the amendments be followed in that process, and will there be adequate opportunities to report to the House? There should be opportunities for debate and participation by all hon. Members in the critical path taken by the merger, which we all support and believe is overdue.

David Laws: We, too, support new clause 1 and amendments (a) and (b), which go to the heart of what the Bill is designed to achieve. Like the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I do not wish to revisit all the discussions that took place on Second Reading on 8 December, but some of us were left with the feeling that there was a lack of ministerial clarity about the cost benefits of the merger and the wider objectives that it is designed to achieve. New clause 1 and the associated amendments focus on setting up a monitoring regime to demonstrate whether those objectives have been achieved, and also establish precisely what they are. To that extent, they are very helpful.
	The context in which the Government initially announced the planned merger of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue was the political battle among all the main parties to demonstrate that they could achieve better value for money from existing public expenditure. It was in those terms that the Chancellor announced the merger in the 2004 Budget statement, when he said that it was designed to secure value for money. When the measure was announced in the Gracious Speech on 23 November last year, it was also put in the context of reducing bureaucracy and the costs to Government. There was nothing in either statement that implied that the major objective of the policy was to close the tax gap. There was nothing about the compliance burden on business or about improving customer service in the ways suggested in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), yet all those are important objectives in merging two such organisations.
	As a member of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), said on 8 December, that some of the individuals who were consulted after the O'Donnell report made it clear that the cost savings and benefits from the Bill may be quite small in the context of the other objectives, particularly that of reducing the tax gap, which Gus O'Donnell had estimated at 30 billion or 40 billion per year.
	As the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned, new clause 1 deals with two big issuesfirst, the lack of clarity about the costs and benefits of the Bill in purely economic terms and how much it will save the Exchequer in the short term, and secondly, the Government's lack of clarity about whether there are bigger objectives for the merger of the two organisations.
	The hon. Member for Chichester noted that when we debated the issue on 8 December there was some uncertainty on the Government Benches about how much the merger would save. It was initially suggested that savings would be 500 million per year. Later in the debate, it was made clear that that related to the total savings coming out of the Gershon review, of which the merger savings and staff reductions were just a small part3,200 job reductions from the merger, set against about 16,000 job reductions gross from the entire process, including the Gershon review.

David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is extraordinarily difficult to calculate savings in such a Department? If initiatives such as spend to save and spend to raise are put on hold, it is impossible to define the loss of revenue associated with ill-judged cuts or changes that are not justified. A calculation of savings is impossible to achieve, is it not?

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right that taking into account factors such as the tax gap, it is particularly difficult to do a sensible cost-benefit analysis. However, the Government could make some reasonable assessment of the likely savings in terms of staff numbers or the additional costs in the short term arising from investment in capital equipment. That would provide at least a simplistic analysis of the costs and benefits over the short term, yet we are uncertain what that calculation is.
	On Second Reading, we were unable to get the Paymaster General or the Economic Secretary to say whether there would be any net savings, however limited, in the first five years of the merger. The Conservative party and others are making claims about cutting waste and bureaucracy in Government. We can see in relation to the Bill how difficult it is in practice to turn grand aspirations to save money through reducing waste into specific figures. One potential achievement of new clause 1 is that it would allow us to see, even in the narrowest economic terms, whether there was any economic benefit from the merger.
	Many of us doubted whether clear economic benefits would result and those doubts were reinforced by the statements of the Paymaster General and the Economic Secretary in the debate on 8 December on cost savings from reduced staffing. We assumed that the reduction of 3,200 staff consequent on the merger was the result of a rational calculation, but the Paymaster General stated that it was only a working assumption based on savings in other departments where similar major changes have occurred.
	The Economic Secretary admitted that the reduction was not based on a rational calculation and that it is a targethe also said that it is a realistic target, but we have only his word for that. One benefit of new clause 1 is that it would allow a much clearer assessment of the short-term benefits or costs of the merger, which is something that the Government have been unable to provide.

Jim Cousins: From his study of the possibilities offered by the merger, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the target could be greater than 3,200 net job losses?

David Laws: It is impossible to say, because the Government have not given us any information about the assessment of 3,200 job cuts. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the figure was picked out of the air and based on the percentage reduction in jobs when other bodies have merged. It is impossible to tell whether the figure is too high or too low without knowing whether it is based on a serious assessment and I hope that the Paymaster General will clarify that matter when she responds on new clause 1.
	New clause 1 and its associated amendments (a) and (b) would also deal with the point that the merger concerns not only the economic issue of saving on the costs of Government bureaucracy, but much bigger prizes, not least the closing of the tax gap, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has already mentioned. A year or so ago, Martin Taylor made this submission to Gus O'Donnell's report, saying:
	the reduction of the tax gap is far the bigger prize, and should be the priority rather than costs . . . this should be made clear to the new management, who should not be judged primarily on the attainment of secondary objectives.
	David Varney also made that point in his contribution to the O'Donnell report. People outside the Treasury are clear that bigger prizes are at stake than the reduction of job numbers in the new merged department, but we have no way in which to assess what the Government hope to achieve on reducing the tax gap, which should be the priority.
	Finally, no clear assessment has been made of the reduction in the compliance burden or, as the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington indicate, what effect the merger will have on the service and performance that the merged department will provide for our many constituents who rely on those services. Earlier today, he referred to the problems in the Child Support Agency, which the media have discussed today. As he and many other Labour Members know, however, many hon. Members receive even more complaints about the operation of the tax credit system than the operation of the CSA.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman knows that one of today's report's recommendations, which arose out of the monitoring process, urges the Government not to go ahead with staff cuts in the CSA until those matters are resolved.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. Even the Government appear to acknowledge that, because of the customer service problems at the CSAif I can put it like thatthe planned staff cuts may have to be deferred to make sure that the service can be improved. One wonders whether the same is true of the tax credits department of the Inland Revenue, which is struggling to process tax credits and so causing a great deal of difficulty for many of our lowest-income constituents.

Dawn Primarolo: indicated dissent.

David Laws: The Paymaster General shakes her head, but I think that she is out of touch with what is going on throughout the country in relation to tax credits. As a constituency MP, I can tell her, as I have many times before, that I am inundated with constituents on very low incomes, who are exactly the people whom the Government set out to help by introducing tax credits, and whose income position is being even more disturbed by the way in which the tax credits system is operating.

Dawn Primarolo: I want to put this on the record: thousands and thousands of families in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are benefiting from tax credits. I have repeatedly told him that I know that there are problems going back to the introduction of the system when the computer system did not work. If he sends me details of the cases, I will ensure that they are looked at, but I cannot believe that he has thousands and thousands of them.

David Laws: The Paymaster General knows that I am taking this matter seriously because she has in her diary an appointment for me to come and discuss it, which I welcome. If the Treasury was being a little more open in the parliamentary answers that it is giving to hon. Members on both sides of the House, we would have a better understanding of the chaos in the tax credits department and the problems that that is causing to many constituents.
	New clause 1 and the associated amendments would allow us to return to the merger in the future and consider it in terms not of the smaller issues that we have rightly debated over the past few weeks, but of the big picture of the problems that it is supposed to address. We would be able to establish the net situation in relation to costs and benefits, the effect on the tax gap and the effects on customer service standards and the compliance burden.
	To echo the hon. Member for Chichester, I hope that the Paymaster General, who has already been generous in some of the amendments that she has accepted, will surprise us by indicating that she is willing to follow this route or some variant of it.

John Gummer: First, I wonder whether any large company contemplating the amalgamation of two very large departments and making significant redundancies as a result would think it right to look back in two years' time to ensure that it had done it properly. If the Government decide not to do that, or something like it, I suspect that they will find themselves out of line with what any other large organisation would do.
	Secondly, the Government have everything to gain by doing that because, although there are many examples of the hopeless introduction of new technology, the best successful examples come from the Inland Revenue. Perhaps it would have been a good thing had there been such an arrangement after the introduction of the new technology for self-assessment, because had lessons been learned from that, the Government would perhaps find themselves with less egg on their face. It is important to do this because it may point not only to failures but to successes, and the Government are very much in need of administrative successes. Indeed, any Government who would inherit the effects of the new clause should think the same.
	Thirdly, I want to echo a point that was made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). There is a genuine feeling among those who work for Customs and Excise and for the Inland Revenue that there is some incomprehension in the Government about the way in which the system works, what will happen and whether there is an opportunity for the sort of cuts that have been recommended. On balance, I believe that there is probably much opportunity for saving. However, it is essential to maintain and improve the morale of those who work for us in those departments. It is necessary for them to believe that what happens now has been considered in detail.
	I fear that I can guess what advice civil servants have given the Paymaster General. I am sure that they have advised her to express general agreement with the new clause, to give significant encouragement to people who want the investigation by saying that they will get what they want but not quite in the way that the new clause proposes and to suggest that there is no need for the detail of the new clause because the Government will ensure that, in principle and in general, its demands are fulfilled, but that they would prefer not to have the new clause.
	I hope that the Paymaster General will have the courage of her convictions and refuse go along with what the civil servants suggest. Of course they do not want a detailed arrangement. Of course it is easier to have a general acceptance that we will reconsider the matter carefully in two years. They do not want to be asked to be precise about what has happened so that we can use the example for better governance in other spheres. I hope that she will accept the new clause in its entirety, perhaps with the amendments that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington tabled, so that we know now what will be done then, and so that it is done properly and not in a way that is convenient to cover up things that have gone wrong. That has happened not only under this Government but Governments for a long time.

Michael Fallon: Mr. Speaker's selection means that we have a wide range of amendments to consider and I want to speak briefly about only those to which I have put my name and those that I support.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled, are important. I fully understand that, as was explained in Committee, the power to transfer functions under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1964 has existed for a long time and been exercised. However, it is important to maximise parliamentary scrutiny, as he argues, over any transfer of functions in the instance that we are considering because the powers of the Revenue and of Customs and Excise, together with the prosecuting powers, are formidable. It is important that there should be maximum parliamentary scrutiny of any further change. I therefore support amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
	I also support the hon. Gentleman on new clause 2. Indeed, I hope that he is encouraged by the fact that it has a great deal of all-party support. It is important that we include a specific duty on the commissioners to secure best value for property and IT systems. Pace the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the record of the Revenue with IT is not wholly unblemished. There have been instances of technology being introduced too quickly or ministerial demands being made on it too late or revised too late in the day. Our constituents have consequently suffered.
	Such criticism certainly applies to property. I do not want to rehearse the Mapeley STEPSstrategic transfer of the estate to the private sectorfiasco, when the Revenue's entire property estate was transferred overseas, apparently without any Minister knowing that that had occurred. We do not want to debate all that tonight but the new clause would at least secure a duty to seek best value. Before the Paymaster General rises to point out that the Mapeley contract still represents best value, it is important to remember that the property estates of the two combined departments is a formidable Government property estate. It constitutes hundreds of tax and customs offices throughout the country. It is therefore all the more important that the duty of best value is attached to the new commissioners who will run the combined department. After all, if the two departments are to be merged successfully, we would expect some rationalisation of the estate. However, we ought to consider the fact that, sadly, it is the experience of business that we never quite get the full savings that we envisaged when we planned these things on the back of the envelope in the first place. It is therefore all the more important, not only because of the Mapeley STEPS fiasco but because the estate will presumably be rationalised, that a specific duty to provide best value should be placed on the commissioners in respect of both property and information technology systems. New clause 2 would achieve that. It would also usefully bolt on a piece of additional parliamentary scrutiny.
	It is all very well for the Public Accounts Committee or my own Treasury Sub-Committee to pick up these scandals and ask all the questions afterwards. How much better it would be if, when a major change such is this is proposed, it were subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny at the time, before it could go wrong. Had the Mapeley STEPS arrangement been put to the House, and had we been toldeven Ministers do not appear to have been toldthat all our tax offices were to be transferred overseas, which hardly encourages the rest of us to pay our taxes here, I am sure that the proposal would not have gained parliamentary approval, either on this side of the House or the other. New clause 2 is therefore to be commended.
	Let me return to new clause 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and which I have also signed. It is an important and comprehensive new clause. When the Sub-Committee reported on the proposed merger, having studied the O'Donnell review and taken evidence on itincluding evidence from the permanent secretary himselfthe biggest single risk that we identified in the process was that the collection of revenue might be put at risk by the disruption caused by the merger. We urged Ministers to focus on that and, to their credit, I think that they have recognised the danger.
	This is a truism, but when mergers in business are contemplated and followed through, the management often end up being distracted from the core task of running the business by running around making sure that the merger is being carried through successfully. Mergers can distract senior management from the running of the business, and if such distraction were to put the collection of revenue at risk in this case, it would be very serious indeed.
	The second argument for new clause 1 is that it asks for the review to include a proper cost-benefit analysis of the merger. I would prefer such an analysis to have been carried out right at the beginning. It is an extraordinary lacuna in the O'Donnell review that he was not able to sayand Ministers have not subsequently been able to confirmexactly what the savings would be. No business would proceed on that basis. Business A would not merge with business B without being able to tell its board of directors exactly what the cost savings were likely to be. It might not achieve its target, but there would certainly be one. To merge these two very large organisations without even an idea of the likely cost savings, and without carrying out even the most perfunctory cost-benefit analysis, still strikes me as extraordinary.
	I would have preferred such a review to take place before the merger proceeded. However, it is now going to proceed, so it is a good idea for us to be able to come back in two years' time to find out what the costs and benefits are. I certainly support new clause 1 and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester has attracted more and more support for it as the debate has unfolded. I hope that he will feel encouraged to push it even further.

David Heathcoat-Amory: This merger is fine in principle, and I support it. That is not enough, however. What concerns me is that we have to make a success of it in practice. I very much agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on the lack of a detailed plan for, or even an assessment of, the savings envisaged. Hope is travelling faster than experience here. I have been involved in mergers in the private sector that have been uncomfortable experiences for staff and for customers. I hope that this will not be another.
	The problem of bringing these departments together is immense. They employ about 100,000 people between them and have different structures, assets, histories and traditions. I have detailed experience of only one of the existing Revenue departments, Customs and Excise. I have always been impressed by that department and the quality of the people whom it attracts. Indeed, it has a proud historical tradition in attracting able people.
	It might be appropriate, on the day after Burns night, to recall that Robert Burns himself worked for the Excise. Some years ago, I visited a small museum at Greenock and saw opposite his name a copperplate entry, The poet does well. That was an early staff assessment of one of its employees, who obviously managed to make a living as a poet as well as serving in the Excise.
	I do not know what Burns would have made of the proposed merger. I hope he would have been enthusiastic, because in many ways he was a modernist. I certainly believe that a modern state needs a modern tax-gathering department and the overseas experience is that bringing such departments together in a single entity is probably wise.
	However, government as an activity, as well as being the largest service industry in the world, is usually among the least efficient. Therefore, it is very important that Parliament lay down requirements and disciplines to make these things work. That is why I support new clause 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), as a discipline on the Government to ensure that they turn the hope of greater efficiencies and well-being for staff employed into a practical reality.
	I also want to comment on new clause 2, to which I have put my name, because there is, I am afraid, a poorer record in recent history in managing some existing assets of the two departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the Mapeley STEPS contract, which is still relevant because it will run for some 20 years. It therefore straddles the transition between Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise and the new merged department.
	We know now that that contract was something of a fiasco. It was signed without any clear understanding of what the deal entailed. It was undertaken partly for tax avoidance purposes, in contradiction of the Government's other expressed intentions. That is history, but because the contract is so long, it will affect the new department. Again, I therefore think it right that we should lay down a discipline on the Government in respect of reporting on these matters, drawing up a scheme for managing the property assets and achieving the best-value obligation, which is written into the new clause.
	The new clause also covers IT systems. Here again, I have some quite severe misgivings. We know that there are more than 250 major IT systems in the two existing departments, together with two very large IT contracts that have been signed by each department. I am afraid that the chairman designate of the department, in evidence to the Treasury Committee, was not very clear about how they will be managed. So, we need a plan and a best-value obligation, which is provided for in the new clause.
	Finally, I want to mention amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are related to the functions of the new department. I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who also spoke about that. It is not right that functions of such departments should be able to be transferred without primary legislation, unless the functions are wholly trivial. Such matters are very sensitive: taxation goes to the heart of what a Parliament is about, and we delegate the task of tax raising and enforcement to agencies and commissioners on our behalf. We need to be sure that those functions are not then passed on or back to day-to-day politicians in charge of Government Departments. The whole point of having Revenue Commissioners is that it removes such tasks some way from day-to-day politics and from Secretaries of State. That structure has evolved over many years, and it goes to the heart of the relationship between such Revenue departments and the Treasury. That would be undermined if important tax-associated functions were to be transferred to Secretaries of State in Government Departments.
	My alarm has been somewhat increased by the Treasury's provision, which is helpful, of the functions that could be transferred by secondary legislation. It is true that those are not mainstream, core tax-raising functions, but they are: the regulation of charities; child benefit; child trust funds; oil and gas royalties, in so far as they are still collected; the regulation of certain pension schemes; rating lists; valuation of property; and valuation lists in relation to council tax. Those are not trivial functions, and under this legislation, such matters could be transferred out of this Revenue department to other Departments. That undermines the certainty that we seek in primary legislation. It is also unfair on existing staff who are planning careers in those departments, and who hope to do so in the new department, because they will not have the certainty of knowing that their department will be administering such functions, at least for the foreseeable future.
	I know that the Government have no present intention of transferring those matters, but they retain the ability to do so by secondary legislation, which we will have no opportunity to amend or perhaps even debate. For those reasons, I commend to the House this collection of amendments and new clauses.

Dawn Primarolo: Let me respond to this wide-ranging and important debate.
	First, perhaps the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who was rightly concerned about the security of staff and their future, should take a closer look at his party's proposal to cut 28,000 from the Revenue and Customs without any details on how to achieve it. He will understand if I put aside for now his conversion on that point.
	I recognise, of course, that Members of the House are interested in the ongoing process and success of the integration of the two departments. That interest will be shared by not only Parliament but other groups, particularly taxpayers, claimants who deal with the Revenue and Customs, and the staff of both organisations. Such interest is right and proper, and I share many of the concerns about monitoring that Members have expressed, as do my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. So do David Varney, chairman-designate of the new department, the senior management teams in the two departments, and the Treasury itself.
	Members have observed that integrating two departments of this sizethey represent a fifth of the civil serviceis a massive undertaking. Such an undertaking requires careful planning, assessment of risk, internal monitoring and the appropriate level of external assurance. For example, all major IT and data system programmes undertaken by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will be subjected to a formal assurance process by the Office of Government Commerce. It is right that, at key stages, we should assess progress and take any necessary steps to stay on track. We should also realise as many of the potential benefits as possible.
	Let us be clear about the case for a merger. The O'Donnell review outlined the kind of benefits that could be expected. It spoke of the potential involved in closer working, the additional moneys that could be expected in the first two years of the large business joint team trials, and potential benefits that are clear from international examples of increased yield from compliance work. It cited the Australian example. It discussed the adoption of merged compliance strategies for small businesses, the administration costs of integration and the savings in the Canadian revenue agencies. All that was in the O'Donnell review, and subsequently in the regulatory impact assessment.
	The process of regular and continuing assessment is built into planning for what is a significant programme of change. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, that has to be expected. Project plans are in place. The costs of integration will be monitored, and the arrangements will reassure us that the programme is on track to deliver the anticipated benefits. The new clause, however, attempts to draw a distinction that does not exist between the activity and results of integration and the activity and results of the new Revenue and Customs department.
	It is no coincidence that the key areas from which we have said we expect benefits following integration are compliance, service to the taxpayer and efficiency. Those are precisely the areas targeted in the public service agreements that will apply to the new department. They will be monitored and subject to parliamentary scrutiny, according to the usual rigorous process. To measure progress against all those targets is to measure the success of the new department and hence the integration.
	Many of the benefits will accrue over time, and stem directly from decisions that will need to be made over the next few years. For example, some changes may be piloted in the first instance, and the pilots will be evaluated before a decision is made on any wider roll-out across the United Kingdom. Of necessity, key pieces of evaluation lie ahead of us. As we make progress, the integration of the two departments will be a gradual and continuing process, and will become increasingly indivisible from the ongoing planning and running of the business of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
	However, as I said in earlier debates and as the O'Donnell report makes clear, there is a compelling case for integration now. The report also set out at some length the evidence that had been considered and analysed. There was recognition of the difficulties faced, both in the UK and in other countries that had undertaken such exercises. The likely costs and benefits were also quantified at the outset. That was made clear in that report.
	Reporting to Parliament is key, and it is right and proper. As well as Parliament, others will be kept fully informed of the progress that the department is making, of any significant changes or initiatives that are planned and of the results of such changes. Therefore, I anticipate a full programme of reporting to Parliament and the wider public over the next few years and beyond.
	Let us look at the mechanisms. The annual reports and accounts, submitted by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to Parliament and published, will provide extensive information on the costs that it has incurred and other financial aspects of both the integration and the department's day-to-day business, including, as I have said, progress against the department's public service agreements and efficiency targets.
	Under corporate governance arrangements, the commissioners audit committee, chaired by a non-executive, will scrutinise the new department's risk management arrangements, and managing the integration will be a prominent element of that. The department's work and that of others will be reported in the annual accounts in the statement of internal control chapter. Those accounts will be subject to scrutiny in the usual way by both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, both in general and in the statement of internal control in particular.
	Moreover, the PAC can request the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and report on progress and on the benefits of delivering an integrated department. It can also call commissioners before it to account for matters reported to it by the NAO. The NAO and the OGC are working with the department to provide external assurance of the arrangements for monitoring costs and for securing improvements from the merger.
	The Treasury Committee has already indicated that it will take a keen interest in events. I fully expect that it will question my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, me, should I be the relevant Minister, the Economic Secretary and senior officials regularly over the next few years. Finally, Members of Parliament themselves can seek further information. That is a scrutiny process.
	Taken together, all that represents an extensive and thorough programme of reporting to Parliament, including the assessments of independent parties, and provides more than adequate opportunity for hon. Members and the wider public to monitor and scrutinise the process and progress of integration. Therefore, the proposal in the new clause for an additional and parallel system of reporting simply duplicates what is in place and planned, and I do not think that the proposals would add anything. I shall ask my hon. Friends to oppose the new clause.
	I turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I recognise the specific issues that he has raised. They are issues of genuine concern among Inland Revenue and Customs staff generally, and among the Public and Commercial Services Union and other trade unions that represent many of the staff. Let me say straight away that, as I hope he knows, regular meetings are taking place with the trade unions about the creation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in terms of both the overall picture and the individual changes to employment and human resources policies. That ongoing dialogue is an important part of planning for the integration of the two departments and delivering its benefits.
	The amendments cover two areas: amendment (a) adds to the list of items to be reported the issue of staffing levels and the provision of service; and amendment (b) additionally covers a variety of compliance and tax yield issues. Both are concerned with the need to maintain and to improve the levels of service, as my hon. Friend said, and the tax yield, while delivering planned efficiencies.
	On staffing levels and service provision, both Customs and the Revenue have been developing modernisation programmes that are already starting to have an impact on their business through increased e-filing. As these programmes and other major initiatives start to deliver a more streamlined service, they will allow scope for efficiencies in line with the announced plans, while maintaining and improving service. These plans include redeploying 3,500 staff into front-line areas of work, in support of compliance activity and services provided to taxpayers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised natural concerns about the security and location of the jobs of existing staff in the two departments. I want to be clear with my hon. Friendhe is keen to pursue his responsibilities in this House and to convey to others outside the Government's intention. The greater part of the efficiencies will be achieved through natural wastage, but a number of actions are being taken to generate maximum flexibility, such as restricting the current recruitment of staff and managing vacancies across the two departments. We are also looking to offer redeployment with appropriate training where necessary. I am sure that all of us would want to see any form of compulsory redundancies avoided at all costs and considered only as a last resort. We have established a constructive relationship with the trade union side about the creation of the new department. Regular meetings are being held and arrangements have been agreed for discussing the new work force plans, including any reductions and skilling requirements. Talks on the detailed plans themselves are not yet under way because detailed plans have not been prepared. But I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that there will be full consultation on these plans when they are available and in the preparation process.

Jim Cousins: I am following my right hon. Friend's remarks on the subject with interest. She has said that she regards all the matters covered by new clause 1 as proper matters for parliamentary and Select Committee scrutiny. Does her assurance on that point also cover the full extent of the issues referred to in amendments (a) and (b) and new clause 2? That would be helpful to the House.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friends will pursue all of those matters through the routes that I have indicated to the House. We are making information available in the discussions with the trade unions and the representatives of those who work in the department.
	In terms of compliance activity and tax yields, we expect integration to help the department to reduce the tax gap by enabling it to develop a strategic approach that will focus on the most serious threats across the whole department, which can be seen in the commitments that the department has already made with regard to reducing underpayment of direct tax and national insurance; reducing the scale of VAT losses; reducing the illicit market share for cigarettes and spirits; and holding the illicit market share of oils in England, Scotland and Wales at no more than 2 per cent. Those are all a matter of public record.
	As with the items listed in new clause 1, the information covered in the proposed amendments is well catered for in the existing plans and reporting arrangements. I hope that reassures my hon. Friends.
	New clause 2 goes over much of the ground that we fully discussed in Committee. The issue of property was examined at length by the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. I can assure the House that both departments have always sought to obtain best value in their procurement exercises and in the use of their assets.
	Much has been said today about information technology, and I recognise hon. Members' concern at the scale of the IT contracts and the importance of achieving best value. I assure the House that those concerns are recognised and shared, and are already reflected in the overarching contracts that both departments have with their external IT suppliers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also raised concern on behalf of the PCS union that the assets should be managed in the interests of customers and staff, and he spoke more generally about staffing levels. We have discussed that point at length.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The Bill provides for the transfer of functions into and out of HMRC by an Order in Council under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975. Under the Bill as drafted, there can be no transfer out or in of the commissioners' revenue and tax credit functions. I wish to make that point clear to the right hon. Member for Wells. However, clause 7 provides for the transfer in and out of other functions in the new department. Such transfer is not new. The Bill aligns the new department with all other departments: it does not and should not introduce entirely new procedures for transferring functions. The existing arrangements, as set out in the 1975 Act, are longstanding and have worked effectively. The arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny affect any future transfer of the non-Revenue functions and are exactly the same as those for all other departments. The Government have no current plans to transfer functions in or out of HMRC, but it is sensible to take this opportunity to legislate to provide the flexibility to transfer functions, should it be necessary in the future.
	We have had a thorough and worthwhile debate, both today and in earlier sessions, about genuine concerns that hon. Members have raised about the integration of the two departments. I hope that I have reassured them that the detailed planning and other work is under way and that there will be plenty of opportunity for scrutiny of the progress we are making in delivering the benefits of integration in future years. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the additional issues that he specifically raised are ones on which we shall keep a very close eye. We can expect detailed discussions between the department and the trade unions. For those reasons, I ask that the new clauses and amendments be withdrawn. If they are not, I recommend to my hon. Friends that the House resist them.

Andrew Tyrie: What we have heard is a speech that was clearly written by officials and read out by the Paymaster General, with the traditional list of methods of parliamentary scrutiny, the shortcomings of which she knows well. No arguments were advanced against new clause 1 or the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). No explanation was given for the complete absence of a cost-benefit analysis before this measure was brought before the House. No apology was made for the very thin regulatory impact assessment, which has only 15 lines on the risks attached to the merger, when we know that huge risks are attached to it. The economic costs are scarcely analysed at all. They are confined to two paragraphs12 linesin the regulatory impact assessment.
	We still have little evidence that Ministers have even asked the right questions of officials, still less that they have obtained the right answers. The Paymaster General is not able to tell us by how much she thinks the tax gap might be closed. She is not able to tell us by how much the compliance burden might be reduced. We need new clause 1. It is essential, not only for us, but for millions of taxpayers who could find themselves on the wrong end of this measure. For that reason, I wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 246.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17
	  
	Confidentiality

John Healey: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 19, leave out 'or the Scottish' and insert
	', the Scottish inspectors or the Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20 to 27, 33, 28, 34, 29 to 32, 12 and 13.

John Healey: I hope that I can reassure the House that the amendments are just what they seem. They cover matters that were debated and scrutinised fully in principle during earlier stages of the Bill's passage, or represent only minor technical changes.
	Amendments Nos. 19 to 32 relate to clauses 17, 25 and 27. The clauses provide for how Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary for England and Wales will scrutinise how Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs complies with the laws, rules and procedures of the criminal justice system. Amendments that were made in Committee allowed the remit of HMIC to be extended to cover HMRC activity in Scotland and to allow joint inspections between HMIC for England and Wales and HMIC for Scotland. Amendments Nos. 19 to 32 will allow the remit of HMIC to be extended to cover HMRC activity in Northern Ireland. In other words, the arrangements are identical to those that we debated in Committee for England and Wales.

Andrew Tyrie: In giving way, the Minister will spare me having to make a more substantive reply. Will he explain why it is that these clauses were not ready earlier? Why is it that Northern Ireland has been left until last and we have been dumped with a dozen or so amendments on Northern Ireland without an opportunity to scrutinise them properly?

John Healey: The current arrangements in Northern Ireland for external scrutiny of police functions are more complex than in Scotland or in England and Wales. We therefore wanted time to get things right. The greater complexity in Northern Ireland, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, meant that it was important that we had fully discussed the proposals with those bodies in Northern Ireland before we framed the regulation. I do not accept that in tabling these amendments the House has not been allowed properly to scrutinise the arrangements, having previously had a substantial debate on the arrangements in principle.
	Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 will allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to co-operate effectively in carrying out investigations into complaints about HMRC. I hope that they clarify aspects of the arrangements that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised in Committee. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are technical amendments to clause 31. They combine the different subsections dealing with police powers of arrest in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is no impact on the powers conferred by the clause upon the police either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.

John Burnett: I shall make a few important points on this group of amendments that set out arrangements for inspection, complaints of misconduct and confidentiality. They also set out the duties, or embellish the duties, of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
	Earlier this week the draft Revenue and Customs (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2005 were published, setting out the powers to be given to the IPPC. The Inland Revenue's serious complaints against staff were handled by an organisation that I believe was known as the board's investigation office. The similar function at Customs and Excise was carried out by its internal investigation division. I understand that the two organisations will merge. I believe that the merged organisation will be called HM Revenue and Customs internal investigation division.
	In Committee, I expressed my concerns about possible confusion and duplication, or even triplication, in the functions of the IPPC, the ombudsman and the Revenue adjudicator. Will the Economic Secretary explain the extent of the separate functions of the new internal investigation division and the IPPC? Will the new IID deal with just trivial misconduct, leaving all the more serious cases of misconduct to be dealt with by the IPCC?
	It is important that we avoid confusion. There should be clear-cut rules that set out which organisation is to investigate what. I hope that the Minister will be able to spell out for the House the functions of each organisation. When he has explained those separate functions, will he set out the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise referral obligations? For example, who should refer if a junior member of HMRC notices corrupt behaviour by a fellow official or officials? Does that employee have a statutory duty and a means directly to refer the matter to the IPCC without breaching the terms of his or her contract of employment? What are the statutory obligations on members of the merged organisation and the internal investigation division to refer misconduct to the IPCC? Will voluntary referral and disclosure of non-specified offences be permitted, as happens in the arrangement between the police and the IPCC?
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendment agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This Bill is the start of a major change in the way that taxes and revenues are administered in this country. The O'Donnell review envisaged significant changes to the way in which the new department of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will conduct business, resulting from an ability to look across the affairs of all taxpayers. The integration of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise is a huge job, and it will take time to complete. The Bill does not deliver a fully integrated department from day one, but it is a first, important step in the process of integration, as it enables new working practices from which integration can develop. Where that integration requires substantive policy or legislative change, it will be subject to consultation in the usual way.
	Clear benefits will be realised from the merger. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will, over time, be able to provide a truly integrated service to taxpayers, which will result in a more consistent and coherent approach to their affairs. It will be able to improve the quality of taxpayer contact with the organisation by taking a look right across their tax affairs and tailoring its response accordingly. Such developments will also help to realise efficiency benefits by improving the effectiveness of revenue administration and helping to reduce the tax gap. The ability to look across a taxpayer's affairs will allow the department to target its resources more effectively on areas of risk.
	The integration of two of the oldest departments in Whitehall is an historic occasion. The Inland Revenue can trace its history back more than 300 years, while a nationally organised customs system dates from the 13th century. The legislation will complete the process of amalgamating the major revenue-collecting arms of the state, which began as long ago as 1834 with the amalgamation of the Boards of Stamps and of Taxes. The staff in both Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue have consistently delivered the highest level of service, and their professionalism is beyond question. The formation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will build on the proven track record of staff in both departments to deliver a world-class organisation that is truly fit for the 21st century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Economic Secretary and I have the greatest confidence in the work of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and the Economic Secretary and I are proud to have served as departmental Ministers. We look forward to the creation of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Andrew Tyrie: I agree with quite a bit of what the Paymaster General has said, but not all of it. When we first had a meeting about the Bill in December in the Treasury, she said that she intended to introduce a minimalist Bill and she saw it mainly as a consolidating measure. In the main, she has stuck to her promise to us that day. However, there have been 120 Government amendments and five new clauses. Even on Report, 29 amendments were tabled. Given that the measure has been thought about for so long, and considered over the past four years, first with a view to not having it and then with a view to having it, there seems to have been a lack of discipline on the drafting side.
	None the less, we had a constructive debate on the Bill in Committee. I gave the Minister advance warning of every aspect I wanted to examine and told her which clauses I intended to consider, and she responded positively, on the whole by trying to answer the points that I made, rather than retreating to the kind of fob-offs that Ministers often give spokesmen in Committee. I thank her for that, and for the warm spirit with which she approached a number of the amendments that we tabled, particularly on the oath, which she has now broadly accepted.
	The Economic Secretary also accepted an amendment that I tabled, or at least the spirit of it, on performance targets and statistics for the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office.The Paymaster General agreed in Committee to re-examine the powers of the new department and to look at the way in which the Keith committee went about its work as a possible template for the way in which that might be accomplished. That was widely welcomed outside and is a great step forward, so we have made significant progress. We have a better Bill now than at the start of the process, and one cannot always say that about legislation.
	We did not get satisfactory answers on a number of points, but I will not go through them all. One of them has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is not now in his placelimits on the powers to transfer functions to other Departments. It is a major concern and we have still not received satisfactory assurances. Neither have we received from the Government assurances on the removal of Treasury scrutiny of payments to informers under clause 22. Payments to informants by the Revenue and by Customs used to be subject to consultation with the Treasury, but that is no longer the case. It used to be written into legislation that that was required, but it is not there now. Again, that is a cause for some concern. There are a number of other loose ends, which those who follow these matters will have noted from the Committee stage.
	We are left with one big issue, to which we alluded on new clause 1. I shall not rehearse the arguments. Anybody who has followed the debate and the course of the Bill through all its stages will be left with the nagging suspicion that the Government may not have thought the Bill through carefully enough. Nothing that has been published shows that the Government have thought it through. Even though we were not opposing her on it, the Minister never gave a satisfactory explanation for her complete U-turn from the position that she held in 2000, when she opposed a merger, on the grounds that the benefits could be obtained without one. No explanation has been given for the wholly inadequate regulatory impact assessment or the perfunctory cost-benefit analysis presented to us.
	I hope very much that the Bill turns into an Act that will work well for the Revenue and Customs. I share the thoughts with which the Paymaster General ended, about the dedication and loyalty of so many of the staff in those Departments. Indeed, that was the very first remark that I made in my Second Reading speech. I am, however, left with this lingering doubt: the Paymaster General has mentioned several times this evening that the merger will help to reduce the tax gap, but she has not indicated the extent to which she hopes it will be shrunk, nor even if an estimate has not been made, explained exactly how that might be accomplished.
	The private sector is littered with stories of mergers that have gone ahead in the hope that huge synergies would be available, but which resulted in the disappointing discovery a few years later that most or all of those synergies did not exist. I worry that we may experience something similar with this Bill. We will watch carefully to see how the measure developsin a few months' time, perhaps I will be watching from the Government Benches, in which case the Bill would be of particular concern to me.
	I regret that new clause 1 was not added to the Bill, because it would have given us a clear yardstick by which to judge whether the merger is sensible, but we will just have to wait and see. I hope that the Government are right, but I fear that there might be a mess.

David Laws: The Liberal Democrats wish Mr. Varney and his colleagues all the best in managing the new merged organisation, once the House gives its final approval. It will be quite a job to put together two large organisations of that kind, which, as the Paymaster General indicated earlier, account for about one in five of all civil servants. When we first discussed the matter before Christmas, the Paymaster General and the Economic Secretary acknowledged that the way in which the two organisations are put together raises major issues, which future legislation must address. Perhaps some of those issues will be more controversial than the issues addressed by the Bill.
	Like the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), the Liberal Democrats thank the Paymaster General and the Economic Secretary for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill and responded to concerns on issues such as the oath, which was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
	Some big concerns remain about whether the Bill's strategic objectives are likely to be delivered and whether adequate processes are in place to monitor progress. The Paymaster General has indicated that one of the Bill's objectives is to close the tax gap to reduce compliance costs and the costs of running the merged organisation. No doubt the Treasury Committee and other organisations will do their best to monitor the Government's performance in the future. I look forward to reading the exchanges between members of the Treasury Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which are sometimes, although not always, insightful. I shall see whether the current members of the Treasury Committee can do a better job of extracting information from the Chancellor than I managed during my time as a member.
	Martin Taylor's submission to the O'Donnell report included several well made points. On Report, I referred to his point about the need to focus on closing the tax gap as the major strategic objective, and he also made this powerful statement:
	integration of tax administration would be more likely to succeed if backed by a Government commitment to simplification as part of the enterprise agenda.
	The big strategic aims such as closing the tax gap, which will be a priority for any Government in the next Parliament, reducing compliance costs, improving customer service and lowering the cost of running the organisation are achievable only through a simplification agenda.
	Many hon. Members have followed the current Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budgets over the past seven years, and the simplification of the tax system has never been an obvious theme. We are yet to find out how many more Budgets this particular Chancellor will make over the next few years and whether he, too, will experience a realignment of job opportunities. We hope that whether the current Chancellor of the Exchequer continues in his post or there is a new Chancellor from another party or another part of this Government, they will put the simplification of the tax system centre stage, because without that the Government's great ambitions for the new merged department will surely not be realised.

Michael Fallon: I, too, wish the Bill well. It is bigger than the one that we started with. I suppose that it would be unkind to say that it seems to grow every time we see it as the draftsmen remember that they have failed to include Scotlandor Northern Ireland, or police provisions. The real question is whether it is a better Bill. In that respect, I am disappointed that some of our amendments, with exception of that on restoring the oath, were not accepted.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, these two organisations are both large but very different. There are no inherent reasons why they cannot be merged; that is why the Treasury Committee originally recommended it. Such mergers have happened in many other modern countries that now have unified tax authorities.
	However, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), counsel against too much hyperbole. The Paymaster General spoke of world-class organisations and said that she had the greatest confidence in them. I am not so sure. I prefer the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester to the optimism of the Paymaster General. As I have argued throughout the passage of the Bill, we still have not been given any clear cost-benefit analysis of the merger. The Revenue has not been sitting still for yearsit is already undergoing the convulsive change of the Treasury turning it from a department that simply and patiently used to collect tax into one that administers benefitsnot without the odd hiccup. I am not wholly convinced that it is ready for the scale of the change that is to come.
	In the world of business, mergers do not always proceed according to plan in terms of delivering deep and rapid synergies. I am always a little sceptical about a merger that is planned for strategic reasons rather than on the basis of a clear-cut benefit analysis. That is why new clause 1, in particular, would have been a safeguard allowing the House to return to the matter in two years' time. However, the Select Committee will take up the challenge issued by the Paymaster General. I hope that we will subject David Varney and his colleagues, whom we wish well, to regular scrutiny.
	I hope that I am wrong about this, and I want to be very clear that I wish the staff and leadership of the new merged organisation all the best for the future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3244), dated 9th December 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Mr. Heppell.]

TUITION FEES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Parmjit Gill: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the very important issue of university top-up and tuition fees, which affects hundreds of thousands of young people around the country and, in many cases, their parents. It is of particular concern in my home city of Leicester. Its educational strength is a major attraction, and there are approximately 40,000 students at its two universities, Leicester and De Montfort, making up about 14 per cent. of the city's population. Since both universities are in my constituency, I have a large proportion of resident students, many of whom regularly share their concerns and, in many cases, their anger at the prospect of paying fees. I want to raise several of those concerns with the Minister.
	The debate is on the eve of the first anniversary of the vote to secure Second Reading of the Higher Education Act 2004, which was passed by only five votes. That Act represented a major U-turn for the Government. Three years earlier, the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had given assurances in the House that top-up fees would not be introduced. He said:
	I have made my position clear in the past two years: I am against the levying of top-up fees. I can now make the Government's position clear. If we win the next general election, there will no levying of top-up fees in the next Parliament.[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1061.]
	Indeed, the Labour party manifesto in 2001 pledged:
	We will not introduce 'top-up fees' and have legislated to prevent that.
	That promise was made in response to concerns expressed that tuition fees were the start of a slippery slope, which would lead to top-up fees. My constituents' subsequent experience confirms that it was a well-founded fear.
	I recently spoke to youngsters outside Crown Hills college, a local school in my constituency, about their aspirations. I was alarmed to hear that some of them would have gone on to study but for the debts that they would incur. Perhaps the Minister will respond by saying that students can repay their loans after completing their studies, but the fear of debt can be as dangerous as debt itself. Many potential students in Leicester are deterred from even applying to study further. That was confirmed by the presidents of the student unions at Leicester university and De Montfort university, Richard Treffler and Chris Higham.
	Surely the Minister recognises the deterrent effect, as the Minister for the Arts, who was formerly Secretary of State for Education and Skills, rightly recognised in 2001. She said:
	I recognise that for many low income families the fear of debt is a real worry and could act as a bar to higher education. I want to make sure that our future reform tackles this problem.
	Yet I can assure hon. Members that the Government have failed to tackle the fear of debt acting as a bar to higher education. At the universities of Leicester, the students are increasingly concerned that, with one promise abandoned by the Government, there is a strong likelihood that, in a few years, the current cap of 3,000 will be lifted and the door will open to a deregulated fees market.  Will the Minister assure the House and the young people whom I represent that that will not happen?
	Early last month, I talked to some teenagers on the Eyres Monsell housing estate in my constituency, where a low proportion of youngsters go on to study in higher education. They had a negative view of studying further. Again, reference was made to student fees. That position is reflected in research that the Higher Education Funding Council for England published this month on participation levels in higher education from 1994 to 2000. The report examined closely the participation in higher education of youngsters aged 18 and 19 from both advantaged and disadvantaged areas. It is worrying that the report found substantial regional differences in that participation, with young people in some regions being 50 per cent. more likely to enter higher education than their peers in others.
	Analysis of constituencies revealed further worrying trends. In some constituencies, fewer than one in 10 young people enter higher education whereas in others, more than half do so. Those analyses consistently showed a deep division in the chances of young people's going to university, based on where they live. Poverty undoubtedly plays an important part in those regional differences and the prospect of student fee debt does not help to encourage young people into further education. Whatever financial help the Government may be assuring students that they will receive, the problem is one of deterrence.
	Is the Minister aware that some disadvantaged constituencies in Scotland, where students are not subjected to tuition fees, have young participation rates nearly twice as high as the very low rates found in similarly disadvantaged constituencies in England? Furthermore, figures released recently show that, while applications to Scottish universities are increasing, that is not the case in England. Will the Minister come back to this issue in his response?
	The Minister will be aware of the research published last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), which contradicted the statement made in Parliament on 14 July 2004 by the Minister responsible for higher education. The Minister cited the latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures in support of his contention that tuition fees and top-up fees did not deter potential students from participation in higher education. The figures in my hon. Friend's research demonstrated that the proportion of school leavers opting for university was on the decline, not increasing as the Government claimed.
	My hon. Friend stated that the proportion of young people in England applying for higher education was failing to keep pace with demographic trends. According to the UCAS figures highlighted by the Minister, the number of 18 to 20-year-olds applying to go to university had increased by 2.8 per cent. in 2004, compared with 2002. However, the population in that age group in the United Kingdom increased by 6.1 per cent. in the same period. Those figures were taken from the Government's own actuarial department. If the number of applicants had kept pace with the increase in population in that age group, there should have been an additional 8,190 young people opting to go to university in 2004. When my hon. Friend added that figure to the fall of 4,060 in the number of expected applications in the previous year, he concluded that a total of 12,250 young people had dropped out of the process over the two-year period. The Prime Minister failed to give an explanation for the decline in the proportion of English school leavers applying to university when my hon. Friend put those findings to him at the time.
	It is unfortunate that an increasing number of undergraduate students are having to take on employment to help to finance their studies. One student who visited my surgery recently on a different issue told me that he was working late nights and often could not get up in the morning to attend his lectures. He was only in his second year, but he was already 7,000 in debt. How can that be good for his education or, indeed, his whole experience of university life, which should include a healthy mix of extra-curricular activities?
	Research commissioned by the Minister's own Department highlighted some worrying findings on that same issue. I refer to the 200203 student income and expenditure survey conducted by Professor Claire Callender of South Bank university in London. That provided a survey comparative with the one conducted in 199899. The survey found that more students worked over the academic year, and worked longer hours, than in 199899. In 200203, 58 per cent. of students worked during term time, up from 47 per cent. in 199899.
	Most worrying of all was the finding that the anticipated average debt on graduation had increased by two and a half times since 199899 to 8,666. This was largely explained by the complete replacement of mandatory grants by student loans. These statistics do not take into account the introduction of top-up fees, which means that debt on graduation will now be significantly higher. These figures might not frighten the Minister, who earns a substantial salary and no doubt benefited from a free university education, but for an 18-year-old, they can be a deeply distressing matter of concern.
	One of my constituents, Mr. Geoffrey Lewis, is the British Medical Association's representative in Leicester. He has told me of the BMA's deep concerns in relation to top-up fees deterring students from wider social backgrounds from participating in higher education. He expressed his concern that the BMA already knows that fear of debt is a major disincentive for younger people with no family history of university attendance, in particular young Afro-Caribbean people.
	Returning to figures published by UCAS, Mr. Lewis highlighted to me the very worrying trend that two thirds of medical students are from managerial or professional white-collar backgrounds, compared with only 10 per cent. from skilled trade, semi-skilled or unskilled occupational backgrounds. Top-up fees, in addition to the extra costs inherent in studying medicine, will surely move things away from, not towards, the policy of the Government and of universities of widening access to higher education.
	There is also an impact of debt on students' mental health. In 2001, the report from Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the United Kingdom on the cost of borrowing highlighted the impact of student debt on health. It concluded:
	Rising levels of debt have a serious impact on student well-being.
	That highlights the fact that those with excessive debts
	are more likely to suffer anxiety (74 per cent.) and depression (32 per cent.) compared with other students (45 and 8 per cent. respectively.
	It also highlights the fact that any further increases in fees will make those problems significantly worse.
	Little wonder that voter apathy levels are so high among young people. We encourage them to work hard at school and college, but thenunder this Governmenttax them at university. Everyone in society benefits from well-qualified, highly educated people living and working here. We see the benefits through economic prosperity and the UK being at the cutting edge of scientific and technological developments. We also see the benefits through having highly skilled public servants such as doctors, nurses and teachers.
	I still feel great privilege and honour in serving the people of Leicester in the House, but if I were a Labour MP I would feel ashamed

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Parmjit Gill: I would feel ashamed that my Government had introduced top-up fees, which they promised the people of Leicester and the country that they had legislated to prevent.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Parmjit Gill: Today, prospective students embark on an educational journey starting with a deterrent of debt. If they go on to study, they experience the stress of debt and of work while they are studying. Finally, when they graduate, they face the reality of debt.
	On behalf of many thousands of students at De Montfort and Leicester universities, I ask the Minister to explain why his Government went back on their word and, in the light of the increasing debt crisis in my constituency, I respectfully request the opportunity to bring a small number of studentsstudents who start with a passion for knowledge and end up with a massive debtto meet him to discuss their problems.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Gill) on securing the debate. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) also in the Chamber. He is a true champion for Leicester and he does tremendous work in that area.
	I am delighted that we have this opportunity to debate higher education again. It is an important topic and key to our country's success. Everyone in the House now agrees that higher education needs additional funding. The question is how we achieve it and who pays. The Government's position is clear, and we spent much of last year debating it. The hon. Member for Leicester, South has made some proposals, but they are not viable. I shall return to them shortly.
	The Government have three main priorities in their higher education reform programme. First, we want to expand and widen participation. The needs of the country, now and in the future, depend on the knowledge and skills of our people. All the evidence says that the need for graduate-level skills will increase. We are wasting too much talent, and too many of those born into less advantaged families still feel that university is not for them. Secondly, we want to give universities the freedom and resources to compete successfully in the international market. We need to give institutions the financial security and stability that will allow them to back our world-class researchers, invest in infrastructure, and provide first-class teaching and services to their students. Thirdly, we want to make financial support for students fairer, abolishing the requirement to pay fees upfront, providing for fair and affordable repayments for graduates, and helping students from poorer backgrounds with additional grants.
	The recent Higher Education Funding Council report illustrates starkly that where one is born is the biggest single factor in deciding one's education life chances. The introduction of tuition fees and replacement of grants by loans, however, have not affected the choices of young people from disadvantaged groups.
	We are working in schools to raise attainment levels and the aspiration to enter higher education of young people in disadvantaged areas. That has helped to increase applications to universities from such areas. Our goal is to provide access to world-class higher education for all those with the potential to benefit. We are determined to widen participation so that everyone with potential has the opportunity to go to university, irrespective of background.
	I want briefly to deal with Conservative policy, which suffers from some serious drawbacks. The principal problems relate to where the money comes from and whether the sums add up. First, where does the money come from? The Conservatives have said that there will be more money for universities. Ultimately, the only sources are the taxpayer or the students. They have made it clear that the taxpayer will not pay any more, so students will pay more through higher interest payments once they have graduated. But which students? That is where it goes wrong for them. With income-contingent repayments, how much one pays, and how long it takes one to repay, depend on how much one earns. The burden of higher interest rates therefore falls unfairly on those on the lowest earnings. If one earns a lot, one repays quickly, so one does not pay much interest. If one earns less, however, one pays slowly, so one ends up paying much more in interest. If someone takes a career break, or perhaps starts a family, the interest really mounts up. Two years ago, we exemplified some case studies for the Select Committee that demonstrated that clearly.
	Secondly, on whether the sums add up, we identified at least three serious holes in the arithmetic, and overall, the Conservatives' sums are out by 1 billion a year. The policy is grossly unfair, and as I said, the sums just do not add up.
	So what are the Liberal Democrats' policies?

David Taylor: Is not it revealing that the importance of this debate to the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party is such that the number of Labour MPs present is almost quadruple the number of Liberals? Does not that show that they are not serious?

Derek Twigg: There is no doubt about the importance that my hon. Friends put on this subject.
	The Liberal Democrats would fund higher education entirely from the taxpayer through a new super tax. They have said how much super-tax they would spend on higher education, but have not made it clear how much higher education needed to expand or how future expansion would be funded. There could be no guarantee that the funding would be forthcoming or would be maintained over time as other priorities emerge.
	There is a real question as to whether higher education would get the money. That is the nub of the problem. Being centrally dependent on the state means that higher education must take its chances with other competing priorities in public spending decisions. The record shows that, over the long term, that does not work well. During the 1990s, there was a large reduction in the unit of funding for higher educationa fall of 36 per cent. in real terms between 1989 and 1997.
	We should remember two things. First, not everyone goes into higher educationcurrently, 44 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds go into higher education. Secondly, higher education confers substantial benefits, both social and financial. In particular, the rate of return to having a degree is substantial.
	It is therefore fair to ask those who benefit from higher education to make a contribution to the cost of higher education. It is important to stress that it is a contributionthe Government still make substantial funding available to universities, and will continue to do so. Our point is that it is not fair to the taxpayer for graduates not to be asked to contribute. The advantage of Government policyfees supported by income-contingent loansis that the graduate still pays, and through the tax system, but universities are much more masters of their own destiny, with an independent source of revenue.
	Every Member knows of, and values, the contribution made to national life by Lord Dearing. He has done great work in education for this Administration and the last one, and we have valued his independent approach. His national committee of inquiry into higher education in 1996 and 1997 espoused the principle that students should make a contribution to the cost of higher education. That led to the introduction of fees in the first place. The logic is as strong today, if not stronger. Students should make a contribution, but it is better for them to do so when they are graduates. Our fee-deferral arrangement allows that.
	Government is about tough choices. The future economic success of the country depends on our getting our higher education policy right. There could be no more important topic than this. It simply is not realistic to think that we can fund higher education now, when 44 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 30 are going into it, in the same way as we did in the mid-1960s, when only 8 per cent. did so. We accept that going for tuition fees is not an easy option, but it is the right one, and the only realistic way forward.

Dan Norris: The Minister mentioned the Liberal Democrats. They have spoken of a 50 per cent. higher rate of income tax. If the sums are done correctly, is it not nearer 83 per cent.?

Derek Twigg: Their sums have never been all that good.
	Let us consider the international competition. The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan all have fees. In mainland Europe, more and more voices are joining the chorus in favour of fees. Universities in Germany are pressing the federal government to change the constitution to allow fees, and the Netherlands is proceeding with tuition fee pilots. Even in Sweden, which has traditionally espoused high public spending financed by high taxation, voices from the higher education sector are beginning to be heard arguing for fees. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's 2004 UK economic survey praised the Government's approach to higher education, saying that it could be a role model for other European countries.
	The message is very clear: if our economy is to remain competitive, our higher education must remain competitive, which means fees. Either we face up to that, or we face long-term decline as a nation. Put that way, it is not such a tough choice. It is what we have to doand our Higher Education Act offers a coherent strategy for reform, unlike the proposals of Opposition Members.
	I did not go to university. I come from a background where it was not the thing that people did. We were never encouraged to do it. I support this policy so strongly because more and more disadvantaged young people from backgrounds similar to mine will, with the backing of the 2,700 grant and the bursaries from universities, have an opportunity to go to university and make a great start to their lives.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eight o'clock.